2008-815-Minutes for Meeting April 09,2008 Recorded 8/22/2008DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ X008'815
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/22/2008 08;16;47 AM
11111 III l1111111illII III III
-81
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
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy
Melton. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Kristen Maze and
Will Groves of Community Development; Connie Thomas and Bonnie Baker,
Commissioners' Office; and approximately fifty citizens, including several
representatives of the media.
The purpose of the meeting was to hear the staff report, the applicant's
presentation and to take testimony as time allows regarding amendments to the
County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to create a set of regulations for a
new Town Center district in Sunriver.
Chair Luke opened the hearing at 5:3 Op. m.
The Commissioners introduced themselves to the audience. Commissioner Luke
then read the preliminary statement to the audience. (Exhibit A)
In regard to bias, personal interest and prejudgment, none of the Commissioner had
any to disclose. Commissioner Melton said that she attended a Sunriver Chamber
meeting about a year ago when the proposal was presented. Commissioner Luke
said that he attended the same meeting last year, and spoke with the developer at
that time. He also helped construct the buildings that would be torn down if the
proposal goes forward. The Commissioners noted that they have received over
200 individual e-mail messages on this issue as well as various letters from
citizens. The Commissioners have had access to the entire record on this issue.
No challenges were received from the public.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 1 of 12 Pages
Commissioner Luke stated that several people have asked to testify, which will be
allowed as time allows. The time for testimony may be limited so that more
people will be able to offer their statements.
Kristen Maze gave an overview of the issue now before the Board, referring to a
PowerPoint presentation. (Exhibit B.)
She clarified that the County is being asked to create a zone at this point, in the
unincorporated area of Sunriver. The conceptual site plan would be reviewed
based on those zone regulations.
In regard to the maximum of 500 residential units, that is the number the Planning
Commission thought was reasonable. However, this was based on the developer
acquiring additional land. Therefore, it is not phrased as so many units per acre,
although it was the intent of the Planning Commission to get the number down to
18 per acre. It would now be about 26 per acre.
Commissioner Luke asked if all units count as half of a unit. Ms. Maze stated that
only the ones less than 800 square feet would be considered as half a unit.
Commissioner Luke said this was not addressed during the Thornburgh hearings.
Ms. Maze stated that this would apply only to this instance and would not be
Countywide at this point.
Commissioner Luke stated that Sunriver has a design review process; Ms. Maze
confirmed that they would be reviewing everything that the County does.
Commissioner Melton asked what is meant by "ample time" for notice prior to a
third hearing. Laurie Craghead said there is not any specific time frame, but she
recommends twenty days.
Peter Russell stated that the internal roads and the County and State roads outside
of Sunriver requires the parties figure out how much traffic might be generated by
the change. Assumptions can be made even though there is not a specific site plan
in place, to make sure service levels are acceptable, but for only the exterior roads.
The internal roads are under the jurisdiction of Sunriver, and the County has no
authority over those roads. Commissioner Luke pointed out that there would be a
four-way road eventually from Lava Butte to Sunriver. Mr. Russell stated that they
could only take into account what already exists.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 2 of 12 Pages
Will Groves has been working with Ms. Maze on this issue to make sure the Code
change has no unintended consequences. Ms. Maze stated that it is a complex
issue and it is helpful to have Planning and Transportation Planning involved from
the beginning.
Mark Speland?, representing the John Goodman, managing director of Silverstar,
the applicant. He said that Sunriver is undoubtedly one of the most historic
planned communities in the State. It is a community that is important to them.
The commercial core has distinguished Sunriver from other resorts; no other resort
in the NW has been set up in this fashion, making it a self-sustaining. In the forty
years since then, the Sunriver commercial core has become a black eye on the
community. The buildings are failing, especially the mechanical components, and
an extreme amount of maintenance has been required. Four buildings have been
lost for use during the past eighteen months. It is a very significant and timely
issue. One building burned down in 2006 and another has had irreparable water
damage from a broken pipe. Two others had problems that have been temporarily
fixed. The operating life of the facilities is very much in question, and it is a
maintenance curve that is a losing battle. There is high vacancy, and the
configuration of the facilities and the age of the underground utilities make it not
feasible to repair. It has had a profound negative effect on Sunriver. As this core
asset rapidly declines, Sunriver loses its distinction. This is seen in average visitor
nights and a decline in the full-time residency. It had a 20% full-time residency
rate, originally targeted at 50%, but has dropped to about 12% now.
Commissioner Luke, to put things in perspective, things were added on to the core
buildings and there is a difference in the age of the buildings. In the 1970's after
Labor Day a lot of the businesses would shut down for vacations.
Mr. Goodman stated that the vitality of the area has a significant impact on the
entire south Deschutes County area. It is a critical piece of property. His partners
and he are all Oregon residents. Some are homeowners there and some have spent
years visiting the area. They made a commitment to revitalize the core and worked
with Sunriver citizens and business owners to try to find out the needs. It is the
core of the area. The number of residents has dropped. The strategic plan from
the SOA shows the number one objective was to address the core. And there is
universal support to revitalize the mall. A significant investment and overhaul is
immediately needed. It became more of a question not of if, but of how. In our
vision we see a vibrant mixed use community and a revitalized mall. It is about
creating a vibrant economic situation that sustains the community.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 3 of 12 Pages
There was no zone in Deschutes County allowing this, so this is a new zone
creation. No one has ever done this in Deschutes County. Staff has been helpful,
and the Owners Association helped to create standards to get this to this point;
agreement was ultimately reached and a contract signed The developer has the
support of the Owners Association and most of the community, staff and the
Planning Commission with conditions.
The change will enable the group to move forward with the project. The area is
about 70% paved now. Not everyone will agree that the plan is perfect, but
everyone agrees that something needs to be done.
Commissioner Luke asked if this zone would be created if there wasn't a project
planned. Ms. Craghead said this is in regard to a text amendment that creates a
zone, and this should apply to others who want to do something similar in the same
area. This would at least allow them to know the criteria they need to follow.
Commissioner Daly asked if the change would be Countywide. Ms. Craghead
stated that it would only apply to that specific area. Commissioner Luke said that
it might contain a roadmap for others to follow. Commissioner Melton added that
it might make it easier to apply in other locations if needed.
Mr. Goodman said the owners were well aware and happy that someone was
willing to make this kind of investment. Although there are pictures and a draft
site plan, and zone change is rather abstract, this show basically what the zone
change could do and that it is the right thing to do.
He introduced Dave Leland, an Oregonian who is a national expert on reinventing
downtown core areas. Sunriver is unique because it is a private community. Mr.
Leland was asked to analyze the situation in Sunriver, and will share some of his
findings. This is a very unique type of development; not a project but a system. It
is a zone that supports that kind of system, and the Commissioners can decide
whether it is appropriate for Sunriver.
Dave Leland, managing director of Leland Consulting Group of Portland, stated
that they are development strategists working all over the U.S. and Canada. He
then did a presentation in the form of a story. He spoke about the history of
Sunriver and that the core area has reached the point of functional obsolescence.
He discussed the problems and possible solutions. His firm has been involved in
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 4 of 12 Pages
the revitalization of over 80 downtown areas and many recreation areas. He has
provided advice to various entities throughout Central Oregon.
Sunriver was the first significant resort area when it was established in 1968. The
plan was to build a self-sustaining community, with commercial, business, schools
and others in a village setting, compatible with nature. It has had to face the forces
of change. The City of Bend has been revitalized and there are many new resorts,
along with a lot of new retail and heavy population growth. Sunriver properties are
about 94% built out. Owner-occupied dwellings are down from 20% to 12%,
when 50% was the plan. It is time to address how to improve this situation.
Goal 8 resorts are now in place and compete for rentals. Others are in the approval
process now, and these all will impact Sunriver. There are 4,100 units in Sunriver,
with most being available for rent. Most of the condominiums are over 30 years
old and show wear and tear. The proposal will add about 8% to the housing stock
in Sunriver.
Many of the people who bought property and live at Sunriver look at rentals to
supplement their income. The average has dropped from 130 to about 100 rental
nights a year. This significantly impacts the income of these owners and does
reflect on the County's income. There are a number of resorts and other lodging
that will impact home rentals in Sunriver.
In regard to the mall, it is important to keep all of the parts in mind as they are
evaluated. Age and condition, deferred maintenance, the tenant mix, functional
obsolescence, excessive vacancy for many years, all add up and its role continues
to diminish. It was high quality when first built and was the center of the
community. But things change. A series of additions did not really follow a viable
master plan. A lot of these shops cannot be seen from a vehicle so they just don't
make it.
It suffers from deferred maintenance with few improvements. Many tenants are
small companies who run their own businesses and it is hard for them to get by.
Only about 25% of the grocery store revenue comes from residents. The post
office moved away from the grocery store. Retail dollars are being spent outside
the community. Jobs are being lost to Bend and fewer facilities are available
locally. Rental agencies now hear that some people won't come back because of
the condition of the mall.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 5 of 12 Pages
At build-out the mall never achieved full vacancy; vacancy has always been about
20% to 30%. If it is 4% to 5 % it is okay, over 8% is not good. It is now 22%, just
of the buildings that are habitable.
A store should produce $225 per square foot in annual sales. A store can pay about
10% of the revenue towards rent. The actual amount there is about 15-30% paid
towards rent. Rents are averaging a lot more than businesses can handle. They are
only earning a small amount and only a mom and pop operation can make it.
Some retailers are captive by a lease and a low margin. As Bend matures it is
getting more shoppers, and Sunriver is less attractive.
60% of annual revenue comes within a 100-day period. Yet the merchants have
overhead the entire year. There is no control on when stores are open and where
they are located. In a major mall, a store is penalized if it closes when it is not
supposed to.
The principles needed to have a town center be successful are that it needs to
function as the heart of the community. If the core is in bad shape, the rest of the
community follows. Certain standards and principles need to be followed. The
Urban Land Institute identifies eight trends that apply to communities, villages and
town centers.
Bend is now primarily one and two person households. The needs of these people
are quite different than that of larger families.
Mixed use is a very challenging thing to take on. As much as 50% of mixed use
projects run into financial hardships because they didn't balance the financial
aspects and the marketplace. In a resort environment, discretionary dollars are
important and they will go elsewhere if the visitors can't find what they want. It is
important to create a place that is lasting.
Resort vacationers tend to make a lot of high dollar purchases while on vacation.
People are also shopping not just for price and commodity, but the experience.
144 new renovated centers were built in 2006, but no new self-contained malls.
People seek out places like Central Oregon, but those dollars won't be captured if
the area is not desirable. Sunriver needs to be very desirable to pull people away
from the high traffic highways. It needs to be comfortable and safe, and a
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 6 of 12 Pages
continuity of stores should be there. Access should be easy. The habits of
shoppers are very predictable.
Within the larger context of Oregon as a whole, Oregon is a leader in the country
in planning. There are a lot of regional and local town centers along the Highway
97 corridors. By concentrating population in certain places, open space is
preserved and the areas become more self-sustaining. Sunriver is truly a
community and fits this paradigm.
This mall is too far gone to fix. It is not just a matter of repairs; it is economically
unsustainable and has outlived its usefulness. The synergy of parts have to be
present to have Sunriver become viable again.
Development does involve significant risk. It is a matter of market, capital and
operating risk. There are many factors to consider, and experience is very
important. A location has to not just meet but exceed the expectations of visitors.
On average the public dollar matches 4 to 5 private dollars. A lot has to do with
how it would be supported. Housing can pay for the infrastructure and parking;
but commercial cannot handle it.
A lot of effort has gone into this project to be sustainable and LEEDS designated.
The goal is to have more people live in Sunriver and to have their daily needs met
there.
Retail has to be subsidized by housing to be successful. Retail has to be excellent
quality and its cost can be high. The sale of condominiums above the retail stores
depends on this. The amount of new housing that replaces or is additional should
be high enough to offset the cost of the retail development. The rental housing
environment will be positively impacted in this manner.
Mr. Goodman said they tailored the presentation to demonstrate what the zone
change could do. Commissioner Luke asked which areas in Sunriver are to be
changed. Mr. Goodman pointed out on an oversized display where the property is
located and explained what properties are impacted. They also own another parcel
that is not contiguous to the others. Earlier renditions included all of the properties
but at this point the property affected is only the property on one side of Beaver
Drive.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 7 of 12 Pages
Commissioner Daly asked if they own the grocery store. Mr. Goodman replied
that it is one of the buildings they own.
Mark Smuland? Said there is an overlay available that would show the property
and the current buildings.
Mr. Smuland said he has been working with Mr. Goodman on this project for two
years. He has worked on Pronghorn in the past and before that worked on helping
communities with mixed use developments in Colorado. A local, regional and
national team of consultants are at work on this project and have the experience to
make it happen. The community needs to be active and engaging. It is not all
about size, but how it is done.
Mr. Goodman stated that open space is important. The big paved parking lot now
in place will be broken up and run differently so that it doesn't detract from the
experience. This will help make space that works better for everyone.
Mr. Smuland showed a slide that indicates what the project could mean. It is not
conceptual or even pre-conceptual but serves to provide an idea of what can be
accomplished. There would be two main plazas connected by a main street. The
main street could be closed off in the summer to allow a pedestrian promenade.
People won't come if things are not convenient. It is a fundamental basis for the
plan.
Other things are mixed used buildings, 60 foot portions and a 75 foot portion to
create variety. It will be a small portion of the overall plan. A few existing
structures would remain. SROA requires some specifics as well. Commercial
parking will be distributed throughout the site. There are areas around the
proposed area that would be within the zone and in the future may become part of
the plaza.
The higher water table has been taken into account. The parking structure would
be partially underground to allow diversity. Wide sidewalks would allow for
outside dining.
Mr. Goodman showed a sketch of 60-foot buildings and how they fit into the
scheme of the plaza. Commissioner Luke asked how natural light would get to the
roads. Mr. Goodman said that a study was done to show that with the width of
roads, a reasonable amount of sunlight will come through.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 8 of 12 Pages
Mr. Smuland showed a sketch of the water features, which could be used for ice
skating in the winter months. Mr. Goodman stated that high-quality architecture is
needed so that the condos will sell. A cascading architectural theme that mirrors
the Sunriver lodge and similar buildings are what people want to see and visit.
Lots of glass and timber are desirable.
The project has been scaled down from February's version to show fewer
residential units. The maximum would have been 450 if the entire zone was
developed. He explained how other resort areas are built; their density is much
higher than what is proposed.
Mr. Goodman stated that taking the density down won't work. There is economics
of scale in relation to commercial but anything less than 22 units an acre will not
be successful and upsets the balance. People really don't notice the density. He
disagreed with staff that the Planning Commission wanting fewer units. He feels
that they meant that a maximum should be allowed as an aggregate number. There
would be fewer people but the density should remain.
Mr. Smuland explained that residents would be able to use pool amenities at their
location, allowing for less travel and providing less pressure on off-site facilities.
But they would still be financially supporting the off-site amenities.
Commercial space would be at least 85,000 square feet and would be built in ratio
with new residential units. The proper amount of commercial is needed to provide
what the community needs but not over-build the commercial.
A visual of the cut-away area of the uses shows that not all of the first floor uses
would be commercial. Some would be ground floor residential with privacy built
in, and some would be conference space. Retail would be concentrated in the core
area.
Commissioner Luke stated that there is a lot of costs when building new structures.
He asked if the rents would be higher. Mr. Leland stated that some tenants are
now occupying space that is too large for their needs. Rents would have to be
higher but that would be offset by smaller space, and sales would be better. A
healthier business is a win-win for both.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 9 of 12 Pages
In regard to building heights, if done right it creates density, brings in buyers and
subsidizes the retail, and helps to keep people in the area. There will be a variety
of heights and proper setbacks. Studies were done and show the buildings well
below the height of the mature trees, and are not intimidating. Mr. Goodman said
this was an attempt to show people that the height of the buildings will not
overwhelm the community.
Mr. Smuland stated that other resorts are referred to and some people have a
negative connotation. However, some of the resorts studied such as Whistler, the
Yosemite Lodge and others have buildings that are much taller and more imposing.
Taller buildings also allow for more open space to be available.
Sunriver already has guidelines that require a transition of height. A height
exemption of ten feet would allow for a clock tower or similar use.
Photo renditions of the new buildings within the existing landscape show that the
buildings are not intimidating and the landscape will be preserved as much as
possible. The open space, such as fountains and an ice skating rink, will be made
available for everyone to use. Public gatherings places will be a main focus.
Mr. Goodman says that there is not enough space to do all that people want done,
but it will provide commercial services. It is not meant to provide an experience in
the forest, but a different kind of experience.
Mr. Smuland stated that parking is a huge issue to some people, and it has become
a science and an art. It hasn't come into play much in the County but he and others
will show that it works. It is supported by the Urban Land Institute. Various uses
such as offices and restaurants can benefit from the same parking. A plan will be
repapered for that. It will allow for the huge use of bicycles. A lot of the
residential buyers will be using the parking underneath the buildings.
Kittleston and Associates provided a study showing the amount of parking that
other resort areas have, and this one will allow more parking. Parking restrictions
will be a part of the CCR's of the development. If more parking is needed, guests
will have to stay in locations further away from the core area. Sunriver has very
stringent restrictions in place regarding parking.
A new LEED program for neighborhoods will be involved. There are five of these
projects in Oregon right now and it would be used for this development. Mr.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 10 of 12 Pages
Goodman said that sustainability is a requirement in today's world. This will start
meeting a number of sustainability standards that would be more difficult for a
single family type environment. There would be fewer vehicle trips needed and
recycling would be simplified. The University of Oregon Architecture School has
identified this project as one they want to study and be involved in.
Mr. Smuland stated that operations are important in this type of environment. The
format allows for an association to oversee individual buildings, but the master
association will oversee the parking, landscaping and public areas. There will be a
funding mechanism in place, through every owner and business, to make sure that
parking is not a problem. This will help pay for weekly events to draw more
people in.
There have been some inaccuracies put into the record regarding traffic, but there
is a study in place and every location where their roads meet others has been
analyzed. The services district is confident that water and sewer needs can be met.
The same applies with the police department and fire district. Appropriate fire
protection will need to be in place before building permits are taken out. All of the
buildings will have sprinkler systems, as regulated by building codes.
Mr. Goodman said that the Planning Commission supports the concept, with
conditions. The maximum of 500 residential units is appropriate but it needs to be
enough to support the commercial uses. The sale of the residential helps to
underwrite the cost of the commercial. The residential also needs to correlate to
the amount of commercial that is available.
Commissioner Daly asked about the community owned property and rezoning.
Mr. Goodman said there would remain twenty privately owned acres within the
zone if they want to be included. The imposition of a 500 unit cap will not be a
problem. Mr. Leland stated that a reduction to 450 units would affect the overall
function of the concept. Every change in regard to residential units and
commercial space relate to each other, and need to stay in balance.
Community involvement is important, and maximum public input will ensure
community concerns are addressed during the lengthy approval process.
Commissioner Daly complimented the presenters for their explanation of the
project.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 11 of 12 Pages
Ms. Maze disagreed with their interpretation of the number of residential units that
would be allowed. Commissioner Luke stated that requiring a hard number is not
always a good idea; some flexibility should be allowed so the project can be
properly developed to be successful. Public comment will come into play
regarding the conceptual master plan, the master plan and other steps in the
process.
Commissioner Luke stated that an urban renewal board will be established in the
near future and although was brought forward due to infrastructure shortfalls at the
Bend Airport, will be a Countywide Ordinance. He added that he and his wife
have enjoyed going to Sunriver for years but have noticed a significant decline at
the mall area.
Being no further discussion, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 7: SS p.m.
DATED this 9th Day of April 2008 for the Des hutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
Vice Chair
ATTEST:
/Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Opening statement
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Sunriver Town Center District
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Page 12 of 12 Pages
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan DCC Title 23 and Zoning Code, DCC Title 18. This is County
File Number PA-07-6 and TA-07-6. This is a legislative matter, meaning the outcome
of this process could change the comprehensive plan policies and zoning laws of
Deschutes County. The proposed application amends the Deschutes County Code for
the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community.
The Board of County Commissioners takes notice of the record on file as part of the
record before us.
The order of proceeding for this public hearing will be as follows:
The Board of County Commissioners will first open the public hearing on PA-07-6 and
TA-07-6. The staff will present the report and answer any questions posed by the
Board. Next, the Board will open the hearing to public testimony. We ask that your
present your testimony at the front table or at the podium. If you wish to speak you
should sign up on the forms provided at the table to my left.
In order to make the process as efficient as possible, we ask that those of you who
testify limit yourselves to 5 minutes and avoid redundant testimony. If prior testimony
has stated your position, please indicate your agreement and add only new evidence
you wish to offer for consideration.
Please note that this hearing is also being taped. The Hearing will be continuted to
April 30 to consider additional testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's
discretion. Questions of people testifying will not be allowed. Please direct all
questions you may have to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to
decide whether or not to ask questions of the person testifying.
At this point anybody here may challenge the qualifications of any the Board of County
Commissioners for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with
specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any commission member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or
herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity
to hear and decide this issue.
CADocuments and Settings\BonnieMI-ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\Board Opening Statement 4 9 08.doc
At this time, do any members of the commission need to set forth any information that
may be perceived as a conflict of interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
CADocuments and Settings\BonnieB\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\Board Opening Statement 4 9 08.doc
. - C C-,
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold Public Hearings on the following item:
FILE NUMBERS: PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
SUBJECT: Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. Silverstar Destinations, LLC, has
requested amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to
create a set of regulations for a new Town Center district in Sunriver. These
-regulations Would descril5 what-uses Would be allowed in the Town Center as well
as the development limitations, such as setbacks. Copies of the proposal and the
record to date can be viewed at www.deschutes.org/cdd under the pending Code
Amendment page.
HEARING 1: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 from 5:30-8:30 p.m. - in Bend
Location: Deschutes Services Center at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend in the Barnes
and Sawyer meeting rooms on the first level of the building.
This hearing is intended to allow staff and the applicants to define the proposal for
the Board and there may not be time to take public testimony.
HEARING 2: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 from 6:00-9:00 p.m. - in Sunriver
Location: Homestead Building at 57081 Meadow Rd., south of the Great Hall in
Sunriver.
The April 30th hearing is intended to allow the public to provide testimony.
STAFF CONTACT: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner (541) 385-1404 or terrip@co.deschutes.or.us
ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SUBMIT WRITTEN
SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO
THE HEARING DATE OR BE SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING.
Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, copies of the proposed amendments and staff report will be
available for inspection at-no-cost at the Deschutes County Community Development Department at 117 N.W. -
Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the draft amendment and findings report can be purchased at the office for (25)
cents a page. They will also be available online seven (7) days before the hearing at www.deschutes.org
under the County Events Calendar for the hearing dates.
Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue.
The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, 'an interpreter or assistant
listening system will be provided with 48 hours' notice. Materials in alternate formats may be made, available
with 48 hours' notice. For other assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State Relay Service.
NOTICE TO MORGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER",,;jZ, ;REQUIRES THAT'IF
YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
t
Dated this 24th day of March 2008 Mailed this 24th'jday of March, 2008
Quality Services Performed zvith Pride
;E c
•D
lw.
MAR 2 5 2008
BOARD Of COMMISSIONERS
~~~Eso
gG
a 2{
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of 4-9-08 (5:30 p.m.)
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: 4-2-08
FROM: Terri Hansen Payne CDD 385-1404
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Public Hearing on PA-07-6 and TA-07-6, amendments to create a Town Center disctrict in the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? YES
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
These proposed plan and text amendments were prepared in conjunction with the Sunriver Owners
Association Board of Directors. They would permit the redevelopment of the Sunriver Village Mall
area into a mixed use development with urban level residential density. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of this project, but added conditions intended to address some of the potential
impacts.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and discuss the proposal and listen to public testimony.
ATTENDANCE: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
N/A
~V
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 # 2
To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
From: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
Date: April 9, 2008
Subject: Public Hearing on Sunriver Plan & Text Amendments PA-07-6/TA-07-6
1. PURPOSE
SilverStar Destinations has proposed plan amendment PA-07-6 and text amendment
TA-07-6 to revise Deschutes County Code (DCC) to create a Town Center district in the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The Town Center would accommodate
mixed-use development including retail, commercial, overnight lodging, live/work and
multi-family residential uses.
II. PROPOSAL
The staff report dated February 27, 2008 provided background on this proposal and on
the Planning Commission (Commission) recommendation. That staff report, along with
the record to date, can be found at the County website www.deschutes.org/cdd under
pending code amendments.
This proposal has been continually evolving due to the complexity of creating a new set
of regulations, and due to ongoing negotiations between the applicant, the Sunriver
Owners Association (SROA) Board and County staff.
Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 are based on the language provided with the February 27,
2008 staff report. 1 provides a summary of the proposed plan and text amendments.
Attachment 2 contains a table that lists issues for discussion. Attachments 3 and 4 are
the proposed ordinances.
Additional changes will be made to account for a smaller project based on the failure of
the February SROA vote, which would have sold SROA owned property to the
applicants. Attachment 5 is a letter from the applicant explaining their intent for new
language. An amended ordinance will be prepared after additional negotiations between
the applicant and County staff.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Staff Report #2 PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommendations were discussed in the staff report dated
February 27, 2008. The recommendations were crafted before the SROA property vote,
and some of the recommendations were based on the draft conceptual plan prepared by
the applicant. The SROA vote has changed the draft conceptual plan making some of
the Commission recommendations no longer directly applicable. Therefore the Planning
Commission recommendations have not, at this time, been prepared in Ordinance form.
However, the table in Attachment 2 discusses the recommendations and the issues the
Commission was trying to address.
IV. NOTICE
The public hearing was noticed in the April Sunriver Scene and in the Bend Bulletin on
March 23, 2008. A press release was issued March 25. Notice was also sent to all
Sunriver homeowners and to people who have commented on this proposal as of 2-19-
08, as long as in their comments they provided a valid mailing address.
Attachment 6 contains public comments received between February 5th and March 31St
Notice that some of the public comments went directly to the Board of County
Commissioners (Board), while some came directly to staff.
Additional public comments will be collected and forwarded to the Board at regular
intervals.
V. FINDINGS
This application is a legislative matter. That means that the proposal must conform to
State Statute, Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative Rules and the County
Comprehensive Plan. SilverStar Destinations has prepared findings (Attachment 4,
Exhibit B) showing how this proposal meets these requirements.
Outside of these basic requirements, legislative proposals are policy decisions. The
question here is whether the proposed amendments are good public policy for the
Sunriver community and for the County.
Attachments
1. Staff proposal summary
2. Staff issues table
3. Proposed Ordinance 2008-013
4. Proposed Ordinance 2008-015
5. Letter from SilverStar dated March 20, 2008
6. Public input received between February 5, 2008 and March 31, 2008
4-9-08 Page 2
Attachment 1
SUMMARY OF PA-07-6 AND TA-07-6
This application proposes a new Town Center (TC) comprehensive plan and zoning
district. Below is a summary of the key provisions of the proposal by code section.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
23.40.025
■ Current Code: No Town Center district is defined
■ Proposed Code: Adds a Town Center district to the Sunriver comprehensive plan
designations and adds policies that promote the applicant's vision of a mixed-use
center
Zoning Code Amendments
18.04.030 - Zoning Definitions
■ Current Code: No definitions apply only to Sunriver
■ Proposed Code: Adds four new definitions which apply only to the TC
■ Live/work residence - This definition is brief, with more detail provided in the TC
Zoning
■ Lock-off Area - This describes multi-family residential lock-off rooms intended for
temporary overnight accommodations
• Mixed Use Structure - This definition is brief, with more detail provided in the
Town Center Zoning
■ Proposed Code: Amends the current County definition of "Hotel/motel unit" to allow
condominium hotels and hotel suites
■ Proposed Code: Moves the definition of "Height of building", which was out of
alphabetical order.
18.108.020(8) - Zoning for Sunriver
Current Code: Solar setbacks apply throughout Sunriver
■ Proposed Code: Solar setbacks apply to the TC district only where the solar
shadow projects outside the district
18.108.055 - Zoning for the Town Center
Uses
■ Current Code:
• The initial area considered for the TC district is zoned Commercial, with some
zoned Multi-family Residential (Abbott House Condos) and some zoned
Community General
■ It is unclear whether the Abbott House or the Community General areas will be
included in the TC district
• Commercial zoning allows a variety of commercial/office uses and a limited
amount of residential
■ Proposed Code:
■ Permits a greater variety of commercial and recreational uses
• Permits a greater amount of residential than is currently allowed
■ States that multi-family residential can not include commercial, but may include
live/work or lock-off units
• States that mixed use buildings can not allow more than 50% of the ground floor
square footage, not devoted to storage or parking, to be residential use
4-9-08 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 1
• States that in mixed use buildings, the residential areas don't count when
calculating commercial square footage for OAR regulations
■ States that for live/work residences the commercial area may not exceed 50% of
the unit square footage, excluding the garage
Heights
■ Current Commercial Code: 30' height limit
■ Proposed Code:
• 60' height limit for mixed use structures
■ 40,000 sq ft of one mixed use building can go to 75'
■ All other uses 45' height limit
• Height is defined as measured from a spot above natural grade (to account for
underground parking)
• If a building meets the height regulations, it meets the view protection
requirements in DCC 18.124.060(A)
Lot Requirements
■ Current Commercial Code:
■ Lot depth 100'
• Front yard 10'
• Side and rear yard none required unless next to residential then 10' minimum
with increase of Y2 foot for every foot the building is over 20'
Frontage - minimum 50'
■ Proposed Code:
■ No lot depth
■ Front yard 10' - does not apply to below grade parking structures and if a lot has
more than one front yard the 10' only applies to one of the front yards
• No side or rear yard requirement
■ Frontage - each lot shall have access to parking, driveways and a private road
through a perpetual easement
District Setbacks
■ Current Commercial Code: No district setbacks
■ Proposed Code: Setbacks are defined only for structures on the Town Center
boundary
• If the building borders a commercial district, then a 5' setback applies
• If the building borders any other zoning, then there is a 10' setback, increasing as
the height of the building increases
■ Paths, driveways, street trees and so on are allowed in the setbacks
Residential Density
■ Current Commercial Code: No density defined, limited residential permitted
■ Proposed Code:
• Overall 22 units/gross acre
• Residential dwelling units, hotel units and lock off areas all count as 1 unit except
• For the first hotel (up to 100 units) each unit not exceeding 800 sq ft counts as
0.5 units
• For the first 200 multi-family units with lock-off areas, each lock-off unit counts
as 0.5 units
Zone Coverage
■ Current Commercial Code: None defined
■ Proposed Code:
• Buildings and enclosed structures are limited to 50% of the TC gross acreage
4-9-08 Page 2 of 3
Attachment 1
■ Multi-family residential can occupy a maximum of 20% of the TC gross acreage
■ What constitutes a building or enclosed structure is defined to exclude items
such as eaves, driveways, plazas or porches less than 12" above finished grade
Process
■ Current Commercial Code: At minimum a site plan is required
■ Proposed Code: A conceptual site plan is required that will
• Provide an overview of the locations of proposed land uses
■ Include all land under one ownership and depict uses on land under separate
ownership
• Show specified items on the conceptual site plan as defined in code
■ Proposed Code: Site specific site plans follow approval of the conceptual plan and
must demonstrate compliance with the conceptual site plan
■ Proposed Code: Each site-specific site plan approval must demonstrate a defined
ratio between commercial and residential development
18.116.030 - Parking Requirements
■ Current Code: Lists residential parking requirements
■ Proposed Code:
• Proposes reduced parking for residential in the TC district
■ Proposes parking for mixed use structures that is lower than the proposed
residential requirements
■ Adds an additional 0.5 parking requirement for lock-off areas and live/work units
■ Adds language to permit parking reductions with a Transportation Demand
Management plan
• Allows tandem parking for residential units
18.124.070 - Site Plan Minimum Standards
■ Current Code: Requires private and shared outdoor space for multi-family
residential
■ Proposed Code: Exempts the Town Center district from providing outdoor private
space in ground level residential units and usable outdoor shared recreation space
in residential developments
■ Current Code: Requires new commercial buildings to be located at the setback lines
■ Proposed Code: Adds the Town Center to areas where new commercial buildings
do not have to be located at the setback line
4-9-08 Page 3 of 3
(14
C
m
t
a
c~
0
O
Q
.D
cu
to
ti
O
a
L
0
0
.y
3
V
D
d
N
N
a)
S
L
o Fo
U
•L N
n
0 O
0) Q'
O C
E O
N U
a)
C ~
cu
c
O O
O) Q_
.65
a) C
cu
c E
m _0
Q a)
CU Q_
? a)
~a
N
a) Q_
.c 0 N
a) Q L
Q 4)
a) Q
0 0-
(j Q
0
3
a) c o cu
c N
L
Ca
L O cu
4 O N (u
u) 0) E
O Q a)
(u C CU
0) cu >
a) E a)
..O O >
C CU " C
a) 2 =3
U)
•U ~ N
L
Q a)
L
o c
U O O
CL U)
04--
0 4-
O O a)
a)
U (u UO
a aa)) O
cu 0
u) E E a. O O
Q.
~ LL-C
C: -0
Fi
C O L
to U O (u "O
- L c
CU O 0) CU U
MOQ~~
Q) C,
a) a) -C
co Q
co V O
c c i
Q_ U Q.
O
0 L O
U a)
c cu = 0
t TZ Q_ O
a)~ cu a)~
EE~ocn
O L
-0 c: U-
. cu a) _
U) O a) -Fu
F-
a) -0 U5 U)
~ a) cn
w fl.
C -C a) a) c (W p
a) O (n L-
,0- E Q_
L W O C X
O U N
N a
Q-E~OQ
Q- E
3-0 p cn O
Q. c 3 cu cu (n
-0 cu a)cnEt
Cu CU -C Q- U
c a) CO
(u
U O > a)= U
E cu E -O CD
L (n C Q_ c -0
C) (D 0 CU
CEO
a) U)
L O O > O a)
+r O Qa)+.„Q
0 O U cu
a) Q C Q-~
2-20 ~ -p
4- N Of CO (n cu
ccn 0 U) U
O U C C
Q (U C U
_ cu N
u) 0 0
_r_-a) 0U-°- c
. >w .0c0
-~Qc0
-pou) E ~
Y U C 0 0 a)
L Y
O 0 C - cu
_ a) -a)
m
(u C a) E L C
t O > 'C 0).0
U 'i. cu = in
c C Q_ - U
a.. C 0 a) 0) a)
w cu to 0 .c -0
o C
U
O 4) O O
Q 4-
O-C 6-0 O
C3) 2-2 W
_0) C C
con 3 - - E
a) O O a)
CU
3
0 0
LL O a
0- CU 4- m~
cu O Q U a)
0 cu ~ cu
CD
_0)i_0
O C
a) E
c O
L to c
p 4- U)
N Q_ 0- cu Cu p
Q
L U O Q Q_ U
C (n a) -
o 0 0 cu C-)
cn
cn
Q
Q_ O O pU Q cn
a) -0
> CO c ( -0
U) 0.9 co 0 O
U) cu Q C 0
a) ~ cu U c
U c p 0 'O Q
Q_ (D CO
U
Q-~Fca)
W cn C
C O OC Q
(u ' C
Q :
(D
OQ) op
cu _U L O ~ a)
L
0 cu - a)
c Q. (u a--a)
O U cn 2~ C
Q_ C C L
O O m m C a)
~ Q a o E
cn N a) p -0
C O a)
-p U CU E
O a) •U a)
cu
L- 4-- Cn
-E U U a)
C O 0 0-0
_O
O U O O E "O
E t_ . Q c
m 0) N E a) .8 cu
x L~.Q= C
Q U m Q_
~ a)
E u)
3 c co 0 a)
c c c ~n o
cu cu U Q
- 0
~ ) Q. a O a
O Q a)
OU p cu 0 ~
Q a) (Lf ' C
O U L 't-- - 02
U U Q C U
D
Q O-
U U a
t
0)
Q
U
p O O
f1 cn
~ -0
C (p~=
' C
U) c 0 L
a) 'cn O
aciv)D0o
E(n cvno•cn
L c Q .Ln
cn 0) O
COE
Cu C +p O O
U•0 C.CU
O +r
cn i
F- - cu c C
ap E 3: -0
0 p cu U) M
N U o (1) E-L
d 0) Q_ L
c O 1
L C OL
Q- O N
Q (B * p Q
Lai.. C~
O 4- L-
4- (/j O (V
c
O O 4- a)
Q_'(n ( O E
E E E
U a) cu O
co U a) :
U -0
cu - V C
0 a)
p :3 E
r-~a)Q0
7 N
O (D E
E~ cu
70 CC -0 a)
Q 'C: U (1) U
L
L ~ ~ ,tA
aoi~cca)
U"0~ ~Z
N ~ 'O >
(u Q
a O ~ ~ O
a) (n 4-
U)) Q 4- cu m
0- 0 (n
Q(n EDQ
a)~°c~
U cn
L
4- (n
p N
2:, O Q U Cu
a)
O U a) ~O (u
E -r- Co
O (On
(n a) U
cu C ~ ate--' N
L- 70 -a
LL O O (u (u
L
0
cu
0
m
a)
L
O
..O
a)
a
LO
Q.
c
0
L
a)
(V
L
U)
m
a)
a)
N
cu
C
CQ
c
.Q
U
a)
"O
C
a)
cu
0)
C
..p O
cn
U) U)
U) 3
n 00
O 00
Q. N
U
ti
N
a~ Q
L
0 (1)
Z LL
a)
LL_C:
>
O
U)
0
a
U
O
Q.
U
Q
Q.
O
O
0)
L
a)
C
U
c
0
a)
U
Q
a)
X
E
(u
L
0
m
L
cu
U
O
Q_
O
Q_
N
L
C
t
0
C
O
cn
0
Q
0-
A
U
O
Q.
to
Q
L
0
U
C
O
U
O
L
C
a)
C
a)
(u
4-
cu
c
cu
0_
a)
a)
O
a
Q_
cu
a)
U
0
0-
2
Q_
(n
N
c
a)
C
m
CO 0
(u
X
a)
C E
cu
C "C7
(u N
0
a) E
aa))
2-0
CL C
Q. cu
Ci3 C
cu
0-
0 a)
U
~
N
CL
00
O
lp
It
N
c
a)
U
(6
Q
(6
U
O,
O `f
~t
N~
U`
o'
ca
NE
~t
L;
}~E
V/E
^W
DE
U
a)
o
4-
aa)
70
a)
(n a)
4-
U) a)
p
co
CU ~ U)
U
N cu ?
to
p O
c
N
a)
cn;
~
L
a~
j E N
O C 0
a)
O
Q a)
0 ca
O O
L-
O
E
a)
p
0
U)
-p
CA
CL
r
O
O
N
4
U
U)
co
E
(
ca O
E
c: a) M
D
a)
E
0
c
(n
>
)
>
0 (n
cn
- L
O
0
O
>
0)
O c
CD
0) a)
U
Q
w
E
4
-
0
a)
L p O
E i-i
(6
(a ,
L
a)
Q
U
-
U
i
O
O
cu _ L
C .L U
U
U i 1,
d
i
c
sc.
(6
(6 4
.
O
(u
(6 O a)
-0
L
-0 Q
O
>
m -0
1
O
~
O a) L
O
:
U)
~
Q
Q
N
0
c a)
cn
.
E a) ~
> - O
N
C
n
Q O
Q' (i3
•
L O
- fl- -O
O
N
p
a) Y °
v- _
(6 O
O
c O
`
a)
U
Y
O
C a)'
> E
cu a)
lA O c
cn
L
L U I
u) a)
.
a)
i
X
a)
U'
L a)
u)
Q
>
L
cu
_
a)
Q
(
L
E
a)
O
c Q c E
-
O .
p
O
O
N
a) r
U
051
a)
c c:
a) m cif
O
U
C
O c
a~
O O
O p p
L O'
0 0
L= i
0 L
U
E O L-
O
U
(
c6
~
to
O
E
O L O
Q O O
E -0
O N 4-
O
O O O> _
0
-0
c
-0
O
O 0 M
U
CU
c
a) cn
O
c
E
cu U
+r
(a
u7 _
-
a) U c cu
•
•
p
>
U
i
cn cp
_
Z
p a) m
O
Q-o
`
L
co
U
a)
~
:3
L
cif L
L .
U
W
O
U E
c
c L
O
Q
O
LT`:
f
a)
c
O
Vl tII a) :
E a
c
E L
cn
C O
c
Q L
O t
42
cu
O
cu
c
c fn CU
(n
O
Uo
L
-o
c
-0 oaE
>.c
c
>.a)
c
a)LC
L
>+a)
;
a)
cnc
cu
N,
o
a)p•-
-0 CL
"
c
O
c
> O O
N
X O O O E
+r
4-3
ca U)
c
cu o
in
O O
c
cu
p
v
a)
r-
N
.
c
7
p Q
U
V)
O
LL cu -
5
`
O
U
- f -C
p
O
L 4- LL cn U
cu
U
U co
5
L U
(n F
1
f~
1
~
f~
/
V
O
L a_
~l
.
t
~
4-
O
a
.
:
U)
a)
O
a)
O
C
L
O
-0
'L
1
-0 E
N
r
L
U
E
cr
O
a)
i
?
' U
O
a) a)
X >
70
n
O
O
c
a)
-
4-
O I
c
O
L~t
cu
p/~.
-0 1
O
O
E_0
(
m
E
O
-1 _0
0
o
t
o
E
°
(D
CU
c
-Fu
p U)
0
fn
d
O
U
CU
Vf L
c~
T
L
m
O~
j
O
0
C
-p
C
-Fu +
a)
U
0 U)
Q.~
4-
U
-
T
a) i
s
ca
E a)
E
a)
c
L
ti
O
U
O
a) ~U)
E
0
O 0
Q
3:
O
i
O c
3
(B
N
U
-C
N
CU
0 :3
O N
O
-
0 0
~
~
1
N
N~
E
O
0 0
C
/
~
5
€
D
a)
f
^
C c
W
~
~
VI
W
(
2
f
1c:
Q E
1
/1
T
0) cn
V
YI_
Q
-
I
2 (D
W
l
}et,
y
-
cn J'.
E c
m
O
C p) (n
-
V •c
(D
C:
i
X cn
-0
a
cu
Q
Q
ml
O
E o ~n
D i
W
o. a)
t
-
~
O a)
O L~
_
O
Q
a)
=3
E~
l) "
6 -
~
O r
p
C)
'
cn ;
:
-
O
C
0
-0
c
!
Q c
O
cn
-0 a)
-
5
O
c
a)
N
0
a
E
L
>
a) E
-0
42
0
cu
CU
0~
O O
_0
U
m
cu o o
Q Q
F
!
O OO {
cu CU
c
co O
N
a)
(
-a
0
,
cn
O a) c
Qr i
a
N c
v~
0
i
o~
O)
E
-p -
a) -
j
~
,0
~
~
U)
N
~
4--+
U
U1
cn
c
~c-
E
L
E o- -
U
.
c
o
.x c 0
~
cna)L
X O
c
cn
F
L
c~.a-~
L
v7
Q
a'
<
o3~
L
a
Ea~o
N!
Eo~,
oc
of
o-
.
oo
-
o
0X~
=
Q o o
a
~
~
a,~
Q °
Q~~
cn Q
O
Q
U (1)
U)
a
4-
°
o
c
L
cu (1)
Q
c
E
Ca
E
cn
o
U)
4-
a) O 0
-
Q
_O
c
O
a)
O
0)
L
c O
U
co
)
0
[6 L
a)
U)
0
a)
1 U
W:
i
a) 0 c6
>
_
a)
i
X
cc
G i
ctf 3
LL
U)
I
m
Z
?
m
rr^^
V J
a~
Q
0
O
N
(D
rn
ca
co
C)
N
C
a)
L
U
Q
!
a)
cu -~e
_
a a) c CD
U
1
c p
:
°
te
CU
O
c L
L
1 cn
0
(n a) N O O
cu
'
cts
_0
)
a
0)
C
~
p
°
!
O
O
cn
O
U C L
+r
O
, L
Q -T
C
, O C
c
X C
a)
C
a)
' F'
j
C O
'
a)
a) a) a)
-
° -0
a)
'
L-
O
E a)
0
4-
Q
a) E
L
U)
L
O
p
a'
a) i
c
+ cu
0
+
)
(ts 0
j a)
0)
_
a)
w
°
a) L
>
O
C
p c6 L- +
Q)
L a) 0) 0 E>
a)
U
-p Q
E C
a s
;
ca 0
O Z _C
c E Y
co
>
p
U
L
c
O
I
U)
cu O
p
o C E O m
.
Q
m
cu .
O 0i
U "a
Q.
a) _ cu
c
-p
Z C
(6
L
~
L
O
-
L O
=
Q O
L
+r =
~ n
Q
.I ~
r Y
C
c co
a)
! -0
a)
Q
a)
a)
O
O -
+
a) c'
D
°
T
'v
- -T)
c-
l E
~ (D U
ECoc
C
L
;
.O~
O a)
UL
~ c
•
UC6a)
E ° cn
~u)
E
~
cn
p
o-
Ec
a) ~
°
E o -6 = cn a)
° cu
o
;
-v C E
Q
° °
C
o
t to °
a) 'O
c°
E
E c
,
La)
cu
c SE
E
o
o
° o
a) -0 CL
_0 U p
oC
°
Q
° a
»-o
°
~
E
O
oa)
-p
! a)
°cno-0
67 a) Q O
0
Lo
O
-aE;
a) L- ;
cn+-'a)
3 C >
L
O +L+
~
O
" L-
a
" a)
U)
U
U
>
O C p U
_O
cn
o
> O;
a) O
n Li
c
! Q
U p C
Z
1a) m
I
~
° a) •U
U
N c
a C
-
L
o~
~ > °
O E
L
c
C:
c
cn
p
L-
a)
O
cu
U
L
C
O
a)
_O a)
c:
} p Cl
"
>
.
Q U I
O m
C
O
O
Q
O
E
Q
a)
! Q
-a
w
Q
1 co
CO
CU
U)
+ i
a
N
L
~
M O
a) 'p
a)
Q
Q
O
a
-
~
O a)
O
a)
-
E l
a a)
Q a
c
a)
O
a)
L x
E
a
°
a-0
C:
0
0
o
U
co
oa.a
o
o
cn
fn cu
ijj~
L °
f- (~5
o a
i '
F- C
° °
o a
U C
o
J
c €
O
to
o c:
cn
Q d
_0
_0 Q)
_
o
i
O
U
€
a)
O
O X
X E
>
c
!
CU 't3
~ =3
a)
O
O
C
E _0
O
cn
a)
O O
m
I
o
a
°
E
a)
O
a)
O
m
O cu
O
a)
!
E
=
\
°
C
Q
o
cu p
ctf cts
o CL
7-
C.
o
N
o
C o
a) v
O
a)
o
E
i
a)
_0
-0
i
o
ca
a)
L
cu
I
m a)
(n
4.1
"0
0
cu
L
1
0)
10 (n
E
!
a)
a)
4-
0)
t) O
>
-
(n
Q
4.1
1
-0
0
U)
to m
J L U
C
M
C: CU
a) .c
tf
c
a) c
U
C
a)
+
cc
Q CU '
ctsC:nc:m~
Q- -0
E
a)
1
Eo
a)
E°
a)
l
W
CO
a)
~
cn
~E
_0
a)
C QI
;
p
-p _ cn
a)ca~
=3 O_
~
cvEL
-0
L
~
L
(n
tea)
Io
,
IL
C
CU >
C
°a)
_
.
C
2
C
!a
w
,
"E
~
acu
:3 C
)-v
a) -5 cu =3
.
U)
cn
0
c
3
`n
_
(
LnI
~
cn cu
.-L
I
a
>1
'
n
cocn
a-~~
in
om
E :2
a)o`
I Q i
z
i
m
L U
n3
cn -2 16
J'vQ
- _
vi
Q
W
-
U)
f6 L I
cn
Q
co
a) c
D
=3QQ
O
v) E
i
a)
a)
1
(n
>
c
i
O
Q
O
C
Q
W
i
C
U
C C
Y
n
O
O Co
U a
cu
a
cn
1
c
I
■
0
M
N
m
CL
00
O
d)
4
N
C
a
'(B
U)
O
Q
0
Q
C
N
L
^U`
W
`L
O
U
-I.-
O
C
N'
N'
a.-
N
F
U)
a
U!
E
4)
-
V p E
a) O
L
a)
O O
O
L
L
cu a) 0
7C) C 4- (
a)
>
O_ DD
0
O
o
!
C O U)
tB -0 (
O
a)
O
L L C
U)
a) C
U) O U co (
(
-C
3
-0 0 O
a
o X
ca C
L a) a) f
-0
+E
O cu
L = cn
0)
m
a)
-O m O
_
a) ' p oil
O a)
O -0
C 3 a) ;
U
a)
to L O E
u) a)
C 7
€
N
f
cu m O;
L
-2
(6
(D
O
a)
O C
E
Q
C
O
(L) a) O
'
O O_
o
U
L
O
m
[
~
O O
O O j
C
C I
C
0
a)
-0
Q"O
O.6) a)
>i
(n
a O_U.O
mO
O N
i
-C -p
O
L 7 (Q O
CL c
(p
-
j
5
(0
> a) 0 O m
0 U)
o p C (
C))
C CO
C ;
CU
a) cu
Co
.
L
a) a) O
C
a) .C
m
cn
a)
U >
a) 0)
U)
cm
m
C -0
i
co cu > L
U)
N
L V i
a) C
c
L
a)
0
-
-0
E 3:
O
L
a),
}
cn
U a) co
U)
O
L U(
a) c: E
U cn
cn
n
o O a) 4-
C
O_
CL
N
V) i
a) N
Q
a) I
U L L
•V U
ca '
L
.V O C'
fn
L
(
U
0 O
LL U
(_n
U
O O O. }
O
W
~O/~
a)
r -0 1. 0-() V/
LL ~
s
{
(
LL -o E < (n E
U U
~ ca
€
(n
4-
O
CL
a)
Q
O
>
-0 }
O
O
C
C I
_0
o (n
a) O
O Q
L
4-
C cu !
a) 0
(n
O
$ U
te a)
oQ
_0 -o
a)
c o a)
o
3 .L f
O
cn C
0 0 5)
o
O
a)
O_
a)
(n
Q
CZ
0 (B co
o
a)
(n
w
v/F
a)
/
X U)
T
V
O
LO
(
L
v)
D`
cc°~ I
_
•~W
a)~
~ ~
o j
C:)
CL
w
U) 0
ca I
a)
N i
"O U
,a)
~ {
O OJ
E
a) CO
L >
L p cn O
p
~
•^C,
~
C
r
(D
,
a) -a
m c4 0
^
,
a)
a)
Z I
r
E
`
U O
•
S
U)
m1
cn / 0
2
0 ~3
^ a) if
if
4-
/1 a
c M
/
~
/
~V V/
O O y~ z
Q M
c ac) ;
j
W O. Y/
L Rco
L
0)
2 .4.r
u) C
C:{
u
=
a) U {
-
L
0 a) a)
f
D
0-0
2
2
E
u
_0
C
a)
C
O
a
) E
L
c
Z`
H "o o
C
H a)
,
i
U O_ oo ~
p O
H L) N
U
f
E
V/
L
_
a)
j
C
C:
a)
C
O
0
o
O
U
L
_
N
0
>
0
a)
U
U
0
a)
_O
a) o
co
C
O U) U)
O O_
a)
C')
~4 j
W._
U) <
cn '
~
U)
U
a)
U
O
L.
~O.
i
W
lV
^0
W
W
U)
L
M
^N^
i.ca
U
N
I
i
€1
i
€I!
f
o l
Cl)
NII
1511
O C
O
ca ~
a) E
O_ a)
E .tq
O
U Q'
a)
C
a)
C
-0
cn -r
CU_
O C
C
cn Co
U O
t N
Co
L
U N
co
CU 0)
E =3 2
2-5
Q O cr
Q
■
i
O
C:
cn
1
~j
U1
0
O_~
~i
Cj
O,
(D
■
cn
0
2
7
U
.1
4.1
cn
L
U
ca
L
O
C
O
U
LO
O.
co
O
M
L
U O;
cu ( :
>
UJ ca
■
O
~ }
w
,
(n
t
w
QI
i
a~
W t
3
I
/
2
U)
W
a)
i
_
>
>
j
{
w~
~
c:
c:
w
•
ca
!
o
C
^
^
^
t
N
LLI
LL
~
H
U)
U)
Cl)
■
.
■
U)a
U~
(6
j
cn
W i
cu
i
in
_
A
I L
f
i
O
W
m
00
0
d
,It
N
U
c6
Q
a)
(n
Q
cu
a)
0 4-
(D
C U
'
0)
a) >
U)
a-
7 a)
p
0
U Q:
(n
p N Q
U
0) -C
co
a) E
U
to
ca
cu
o
4- (n CL m c
a) cu 01
C
°
0 E
cu
0 0)
0
U)
I
U)
U)
(D U
'
'
a)
o o I
-c
a) a 0 a)
o
C'
0 a) L LA
N
O O U
-0
a) E
gy m a)'
E
E v
c: cu I
E E,z
a)
c ~ •0
p a)
O`
~ Y
c '
E L
-0 u) u) E cu !
O}
In E
=
-0
(n E
m u)
Q ca (n
O O
1
U
O
U C a
CU
O
E
-p
O
cu
E
U)
oa) 51
'u E +.~3cu oj
at c
E~
a)
O
0
(
E O
O
N
E
_0
"
0
C:
c
p
cu a)
(D
cu O a) {
m a w
p O
U'
O
a.-. c;
D C
O•
"
m U O m
cv cn L
m U O
U
~ a
U C ;
C L
-0
O a
L O
a) ;
L ,
a)
a ~
L a) a)
)
O O ;
cu 'O •(n,
to
O a) C
'(n 3 o
a)
'D L cB
O :3
Q .~I ~
E C
LL }I
a. E
E i
0 •/1 O V~'
/
U~ O V' O =V ~
C
C +U) f
O
O
L U;
M w
O
0
L
D L Q i
O W N U
CU O p
E cfl Q ~
O
O
-0 C O D~
(L)
E'
O O O f
~a)UU
a) O
sa)U
E _
a)
3
(n (n Q
U
U) U) 0) Qom.
(n O
(n
)
a)
0)
U ~C
0
U
C
CU M C:
U_ U)
T.
a)I
-0 -C
a
-0 M
Z;
U O O
O) U -0 E N O
~
(n p a) ~_0
c O'
(n C~
-0 (n O c
N O
N
L
~
C Q x
o
a)
n3 C n N U)
M ,
U
(D i
O C Q a) O
;
U) L
(n
O
(n E
N
N
'
O a)
-0 O O E ~
C
U C
O
(n'
U uQ)
c -C
Q c
i U
Q U W
U;
N
L 4)
N L t Q•~ Y
j
L > O Q
Q.E'
L O ~i
2 00 "O L!
p "O
_
u) F- (i3(~,- to
Q (OZ Q;
QI-'
O OZL
IL
0<
0
UQ
O 0
(D
0
a
L
a) E
I
O
€
O
a)
p
v
0
U O
O
a)
L
ca
C)
Q
(
O
p
CD
i
O o
i
~
~
L
f
O
0)
a) O
O U
i
0-
O
3
- 0
Q
U
o
U) ^
a=
Q i
i
O
C
I
O
O
'
0
Ll~ E
? U
00 C'
C: U
-
U
(D
1
O I~
C)
C i
CU .5 ^
Q
L
U-) O
!
1
0
L
U a) 0
(D
U 0
LQ
0o
m
-0 C
0
2
3~n
Epo
cu
°-o
-C 00
a
a)
4-
=s C)
0) CL
o
F- E
c6 D U)
O a)
1
cn
M (n
(n
U')
In
~
D
WO U
E N
7
!
E
c
ca :2
Z i
LL
O C L
CU a)
O E
X
O
CO ~
CL
U
(n
-
a) U)
p
0) = €
Q
U') Q "C3 i
0
O L
cu
O
L
C a) =
L-
a)
2
+r
_0
i W
(n Q
Q m
OU1
Q
J~ !
Q ~2
€ E
Ca
f
cu
* 1
1lJ !
E
C
L
L {
L
t
(D
cl)
O Q
_
a)
t
t
c%
C
C
aJ
E
0
U
N
O
ul
w
E
E
O
U
Q
C
(6
a
O
LO
co
0-
00
0
N
C
a)
E
U
Q
j
c
c'
C
o f
o
o
cu €
M
cu
C
O C
a)
C a) a)
U) O a)
a)
cu;
E cu,
~
CU O
~E5[
O
O
O!
0 E a) L Of
Oa)
•f•' L:
a)
L
cu U
0 f6
cu
0
O
L.
.
U O w L-s
.
U 0 cn!
O
;
CL
a
C
c
C. E C(
Q E
m
cow E
m E;
E
j U;
a) 0
4- O U c.)
a)
a• a) U
cn U
a);
•
O a)
'
L
L,
~
- L -C
~
C
-0 U) o
a)
-0 cn oi
CD
cn
-0
a)
cn -
(n
0 a)
CL L)
-0
0
0
a
U)'
O C"a•
'
O Cam:
O~ 0)
~
D L`
L O
UQE-l
a
L O
a UQ
L
Q O
a
0
c
u
)
U)
a)
-O O
°
O
U) O
m
U
a)
O
i
C U~
LO
a)
O
N
C
LO
W
O 00 :3
U
j
(n
a)
Q
a)
E T)
~n ;
a)
.v(
U
C
Q U
X C
O M O
Q a)
cB Q-
E
°
cn
cv cn
0)
C
C N cu
O C
~
cv cff
, U
C
N C 7
C Co 0
cn
-0 Q
-C
U
O
CD
4-
(D Q)
LL -C -C
U)
O Cl)
Q
E
C
E
a)
~^♦l
rtf
Q W
C
`V
U E
a)
C
cv ~
> -
U
U C
2D
dC~
ICU
`l CU
a)
. O
U
C
! ca
1?O
N
i
L
U-
m
a)
N
CQ
U)
C
O
co
C
. a)
E
O
co
C
O N
U
N
E ate)
O
!U
t ~
IC Q
N cu
(n
O a)
Co ~
U) O
r
U ~
Q a)
(a
Q E
H
0
rn
co
co
O
v
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 23, of the
Deschutes County Code Comprehensive Plan to
Create a New Town Center Designation in the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community, and
Declaring an Emergency.
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2008-013
*
*
*
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2007, SilverStar Development submitted an application to amend the
Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 23.40, the Comprehensive Plan text, goals and policies for the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would create a new Comprehensive Plan Town Center
designation and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on September 27, November 8 and
December 13 and, on January 10, 2008, forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") a
recommendation of approval with proposed conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after public hearings on April 9 and April 30, 2008 and
concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the Sunriver Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.40.025, Urban Unincorporated Community - Sunriver, is
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 st-rikethfoug .
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-013 (04/09/08)
Section 5. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR
TAMMY (BANEY) MELTON, VICE CHAIR
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER
Date of 0 Reading: day of 12008.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of 92008.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Michael M. Daly
Dennis R. Luke
Tammy (Baney) Melton _
Effective date: day of 52008.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-013 (04/09/08)
23.40.025. Urban Unincorporated Community - Sunriver.
Under OAR 660, Division 22, Unincorporated Communities, Sunriver meets the definition for both an
"Urban Unincorporated Community" and a "Resort Community." With the help of a stakeholder advisory
committee comprised of key members of the community who represent a multitude of property owners and
development interests, the decision was made to proceed with the planning process for Sunriver as an Urban
Unincorporated Community. It was the consensus of the committee that the provisions allotted for Urban
Unincorporated Communities under the rule offered the greatest practical degree of flexibility for future
growth and development in Sunriver. Subsection OAR 660.22.010(8) defines "Urban Unincorporated
Community" as;
"[a]n unincorporated community which has the following characteristics:
1. Includes at least 150 Permanent dwelling units including manufactured homes;
2. Contains a mixture of land uses, including three or more public, commercial or industrial land uses;
3. Includes areas served by a community sewer system; and,
4. Includes areas served by a community water system.
A. Comprehensive Plan Findings and Policies - General.
1. Background.
a. Historical background.
Sunriver is located in the central portion of Deschutes County, approximately 15 miles south of
the city limits of Bend. Sunriver lies in the Upper Deschutes River Basin, with the Deschutes
River generally forming the western boundary of the community. Sunriver includes
approximately 3,374 acres which are bounded by the Deschutes National Forest on the east,
west and north sides. Small lot residential subdivision development is the predominant land use
to the south of the community boundary. However, Crosswater, a private residential/resort
community has also recently been developed in the area immediately south of Sunriver.
Development of Sunriver began in 1967 and the first subdivision plat within Sunriver was
filed in 1968. Development in Sunriver began during a period of time when the unincorporated
areas of Deschutes County were not zoned. In 1972, when the County first adopted a zoning
ordinance (PL-5) and Comprehensive Plan, the area identified as Sunriver was zoned A-1-T and
designated "planned development" on the Comprehensive Plan map. In 1973, a zone change to
planned development (PD) was applied for and granted. As part of the zone change
application, a "Master Plan" was developed. The Master Plan consisted of a map showing the
proposed development of Sunriver. The original area of Sunriver encompassed approximately
5,500 acres. Development occurred in accordance with the PD Zone of PL-5 and the density of
development was determined to be 1.5 units per acre overall.
In 1977, approximately 2,200 acres of property originally contemplated for development as
part of Sunriver were sold to the U.S. Forest Service. Following the sale, a revised Master Plan
for Sunriver Phase H was prepared for the undeveloped portion of Sunriver. In October 1978,
the County approved the revised Sunriver Phase 11 Master Plan with the same PD Zoning
designation.
In 1980, after a controversy over a land use application submitted for development within
Sunriver, the viability of the Sunriver Master Plan was called into question. This was
compounded by the fact that PL-15, the County Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1979 to replace
PL-5, did not include any provisions for "planned communities." As a result, the developer of
Sunriver agreed to develop a Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinance text and new Master
Plan for Sunriver subject to County review and approval. In November 1982, the County
adopted an ordinance amending PL-15 to add a section providing for the Planned Community
(PC) Zone and approving a new Sunriver Master Plan. Since 1982, the PC Zoning Ordinance
Text and Master Plan remained relatively unchanged and were the guiding documents for the
majority of existing development in Sunriver.
PAGE 1 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
The PC zone adopted in 1982 included seven (7) separate district designations within the
community. The districts included the following:
Single Family Residential District -RS
Multiple Family Residential District -RM
Commercial District - C
Resort District - R
Industrial District - I
Community Property -CP
Airport District -A
Approximately 80 percent of the area within the Sunriver community boundary has already
been developed under the past zoning ordinances and Master Plans. Past development has
included a mixture of single family and multi-family residences, commercial businesses, resort
and recreational amenities and public service buildings.
In 1997, the 1982 Master Plan was repealed by Ordinance No. 97-076 and replaced by
comprehensive plan fmdings and olicies for the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community.
The Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community zoning districts were adopted at this time and
multi-family residential development was allowed in the Commercial District.
b. Population and growth.
The current population of Sunriver is difficult to ascertain. This is due to the large number of
vacation and second homes within the community that are occupied for only part of the year.
According to statistics compiled by the Sunriver Owners Association, the number of full time,
year round residents of Sunriver is estimated to be 1,654 persons. During the peak tourist
season, the population of Sunriver, including guests who do not own property but are renting
residences within the community, is estimated to be 12,664 persons.
While the number of residential lots (both single family and multi-family) within the
community and the density of development can be determined with a great degree of accuracy,
the rate of future population growth in Sunriver is difficult to estimate due to the large number
of residences that serve as second and/or vacation homes. Approximately 80 percent of the
existing dwellings are vacant for large periods of time throughout the year. However, during
the peak tourist seasons, the majority of the dwellings are occupied. Thus, Sunriver typically
experiences a fluctuating population comprised of both year round and part time residents.
At the end of 1996, Sunriver had an 80 percent buildout of single-family residential lots with
2,575 single-family homes and a 95 percent buildout of townhomes and condominiums with
896 residences. When adding these together, there are a total of 3,428 single-family residences
in Sunriver. When using the 1990 Census figure which estimates an average of 2.54 persons per
household, the population figure is approximately 8,707 persons. Upon total buildout of the
residential lots in Sunriver, the estimated population could be expected to total 10,455 persons.
This does not take into account the resort/vacation component of Sunriver and the fact that
many dwellings are not occupied full time. Based on information compiled by the Sunriver
Owners Association, approximately 19 percent of the single family residences existing as of
1996 are occupied on a year round basis. Thus, a more accurate estimate of full time residents
is 1,654 persons. If the percentage of full time residents holds relatively constant as it has in the
past, the population of full time residents could be expected to be 1,906 persons upon buildout
of all residential lots. Upon buildout, it is expected that the population growth will become
substantially stagnant since there are no plans for expanding the community boundaries at this
time.
c. Periodic review.
In the fall of 1994, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted a
new administrative rule, OAR 660.22, Unincorporated Communities, which required counties
PAGE 2 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
to update land use plans and regulations for such communities. As part of Periodic Review, the
County updated the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations for Sunriver to comply
with the rule.
d. "Urban Unincorporated Community."
Sunriver meets the definition because it has historically included land developed with a mixture
of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Sunriver utilities operate both a community
sewer and water system which are in place and serve the existing development. Sunriver is
served by its own fire and police departments and also has essential services such as a school.
The Comprehensive Plan designates Sunriver as an Urban Unincorporated Community and
provides for future growth and development accordingly.
e. Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Boundary.
Since 1977, Sunriver has included approximately 3,374 acres of land. Within this area, there
are 4,700 total tax lots, including common areas. The community boundary is generally formed
by the Deschutes River on the west, Spring River Road/South Century Drive on the south and
the Deschutes National Forest on the north and east. This boundary has remained unchanged
since 1977.
During the 1997 update, the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community boundary has been
amended in the following way: Three hundred sixty-six acres were added to the Sunriver
Urban Unincorporated Community along the east boundary to include an area that is to be used
for sewage effluent storage and disposal. This area has been added per Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality requirements. The effluent and storage capabilities of the existing
sewage system are at or near capacity seasonally. Thus, this expansion of the community
boundary was necessary to provide adequate sewage disposal services to the existing
community at buildout. This area is not intended to provide additional sewer capacity to serve
areas outside of the historic community boundaries. This area, currently part of the Deschutes
National Forest, was changed from a plan designation of Forest to Urban Unincorporated
Community - Forest.
B. Land use planning.
1. Existing land uses.
The predominant land use in Sunriver is residential, the majority of which is single-family
residential development. However, since Sunriver was originally developed as a planned
community, a number of other uses exist which make Sunriver a community which is somewhat
self-reliant. Uses which support the residential components include a commercial core which
contains a variety of retail businesses developed in a pedestrian mall setting, as well as a business
park. A large component of development in Sunriver includes resort related amenities such as golf
courses, a lodge, convention facilities and overnight accommodations. A fire station, police station
and public works facility have also been developed in support of all uses.
Market demands and other factors have given rise to an increasing number of alternative
ownership models. A number of more recent housing projects have been developed and marketed
as fractional ownership units.
Land bordering Sunriver on the north, east and west is zoned Forest Use (F-1) and is within the
Deschutes National Forest. The National Forest land remains undeveloped and is primarily used
for recreational purposes such as hiking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, etc. The forest lands and
the recreational opportunities that they offer enhance the resort component of Sunriver. Land to the
south of Sunriver includes primarily private property which is zoned Rural Residential (RR-10).
The majority of the RR-10 properties include small lot (one-half to one acre parcels) subdivisions
which were created prior to any zoning laws.
2. Comprehensive Plan Designations.
The 1997 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community las7created eight comprehensive plan designations;. In 2008, a ninth plan desi ation,
PAGE 3 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
the Town Center District was added to the plan. The comprehensive plan designations for the
Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community are shown on the comprehensive plan map attached as
Map "A" at the end of this chapter and are described as follows:
a. Residential District. The Residential District designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map
includes the Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Residential Districts as shown on
the Zoning Map for the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. This plan designation
includes all properties which were previously designated for residential development under the
previous Planned Community designation. No change to residential boundaries have been
made.
b. Commercial District. The maje ity of the land designated Commercial is located in two areas
of the community. One district lies near the Town Center District. It includes commercial
areas not included in the Town Center District such as the Fremont Crossing Phase 2 residential
development and the community church. irieludes t ' of Stmr-ivef h n
An additional Commercial District is
located at the north end of the community and is developed with a grocery store and gas station.
The Village Mall is developed as an eutdoef pedestfian mail and ineludes a var-iety Of
eammefeial uses. Many of the existing eewumer-eial uses supper4 the tetifist eempenepA of t
eemmunity afid fesidents living within the betmdar-ies of Sumiven This plan designation
ineludes all areas f4mer-ly designated for- eeffhffier-eial use.
c. Town Center District. The Town Center District was created in an effort to preserve and
enhance the commercial core area of Sunriver, formerly referred to as the Sunriver Village
Mall. The Town Center District was designed to be applied to lands in and near the
commercial core area of Sunriver designated Commercial, Community or Residential. The
objective for the Town Center District is to combine a mixture of complementary land uses that
may include retail offices commercial services residential housing and civic uses to create a
vital commercial core that will support the tourist component of the community and residents
living within Sunriver. The Town Center District is designed to strengthen the commercial core
area of Sunriver as the heart of the community, to improve the community's economic base and
to enhance the appearance of the area through high-quality design.
ed. Resort District. In general, the Resort plan designation includes properties which are developed
with amenities such as the Sunriver Lodge and Great Hall, golf courses, the equestrian and
marina facilities and the nature center. These amenities have been developed to foster the
recreation and tourist component of Sunriver. For the most part, this designation includes the
properties which are owned and managed by Sunriver Resort.
de. Business Park District. The Sunriver Business Park lies at the southern end of the community
boundary and is physically separated from the remainder of the community by Spring River
Road. This plan designation was originally created to accommodate light industrial
development to support the employment needs of the community and surrounding area. Since
the inception of zoning ordinance regulations for this area, development has been primarily
commercial in nature rather than industrial. The zoning ordinance has been modified to reflect
the existing businesses and the trend for commercial development while still allowing for
industrial uses to develop.
e_f. Community District. The Community plan designation includes properties which are primarily
developed with public service uses which support all facets of the community. Development
includes the fire station, school, community center, corporation/public works facility.
Properties with this designation are primarily owned and administered by the Sunriver Owners
Association.
€g. Airport District. The Airport plan designation includes areas which are currently developed
with airport related amenities, such as runways, hangars, fueling stations and maintenance
facilities. This district also includes areas surrounding the actual airport development which
PAGE 4 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
are considered to be in the sphere of influence of the airport and in which airport related
impacts and risks are associated. Development in the airport district shall be limited with
respect to heights of structures, public gathering places and other potential risks to persons or
property related to airport uses.
gh. Utility District. This plan designation includes properties which are currently developed with
amenities such as sewage pump stations, water treatment facilities, water distribution facilities
and associated utility improvements. The utility plan designation is intended to provide for the
development and expansion of necessary utility facilities on properties which are already
devoted to such uses.
Iii. Forest District. The previous boundary for Sunriver was expanded by approximately 370 acres
to include an area of land to the east that has historically been zoned for forest uses and is
within the Deschutes National Forest. A recent decision by the U.S. Forest Service to permit an
effluent storage pond and effluent irrigation site on approximately 50 acres in this area and a
potential land transfer by which ownership would be transferred to the Sunriver Utilities
Company prompted inclusion of this area within the community boundary. By including this
area within the community boundary, future expansion of the sewage disposal system to
include the application of biosolids in addition to the effluent irrigation site and storage pond
would be permitted. This will enable Sunriver to meet Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality regulations for treated wastewater storage and disposal into the future, through buildout
of properties in Sunriver. An exception to Goal 4 has not been taken because the only uses
allowed in the expansion area are uses that are permitted in the Forest zone, consistent with
Goal 4. (Ord. 98-014).
C. Public Facility Planning.
1. Utilities.
Water and sewer service within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community is provided by the
Sunriver Utilities Company (SRUC). SRUC is under the jurisdiction of the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon. The SRUC was established as a private water and wastewater company
and has provided water and sewer services within the community boundary since 1969. SRUC is
the largest private water/wastewater company in the State of Oregon.
a. Water. SRUC currently operates three main wells which are capable of pumping over 7.5
million gallons of water each day. In addition, reservoir capacity for water storage is 2 million
gallons per day. This volume of water production and storage exceeds the needs of the
community within the boundaries of Sunriver.
As of 1997, SRUC serves a total 3603 water customers. This total includes the following types
of service connections: 2630 residential; 753 condominiums; 125 commercial; and, 95 for
irrigation purposes. All service connections are metered to measure the amount of water that is
being used. The meter service sizes range from typical 3/4" residential lines to 6" lines for
irrigation, commercial and industrial uses.
b. Sewer. Sunriver's wastewater facility is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). Sewage treatment facilities are capable of handling/treating 2
million gallons of wastewater per day. This includes the 1997 expansion of effluent storage
ponds on a U.S. Forest Service parcel along the eastern boundary of Sunriver. The design and
flow accommodations will facilitate build out of all 4,600 lots within the community.
2. Public Services.
a. Police. Sunriver's police department is responsible for law enforcement within the boundary of
the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. In special circumstances, at the request of the
Deschutes County Sheriff, the department will assist with law enforcement outside of the
community boundary.
PAGE 5 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
b. Fire. All areas within the boundary of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community, except
for the Business Park, are served by the Sunriver Fire Department. The Business Park is
provided with fire protection by the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District.
The Sunriver Fire Department provides fire protection and ambulance service within the
Sunriver community boundary, north of South Century Drive. Additionally, the department
provides these same services to areas outside of the community boundary to the east, west and
north. The department has a mutual agreement with the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
to provide secondary services within each other's service boundaries on an as needed basis.
The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District provides fire protection and ambulance service to the
portion of the Sunriver community known as the Business Park. The La Pine Rural Fire
Protection District has a new station located along South Century Drive approximately 1 '/z mile
south of the community boundary.
c. Schools. Three Rivers Elementary School, which is under the direction of the Bend-La Pine
School District, is currently the sole school within the boundary of the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community. Three Rivers Elementary offers schooling from kindergarten
through 5'1' grade and has an enrollment of approximately 270 students. The school accepts
pupils from both inside and outside the boundary of the Sunriver Unincorporated Community.
3. Other.
a. Sunriver Owners Association. The Sunriver Owners Association has the day-to-day
responsibility of overseeing the majority of the community operations. The association is
governed by a Board of Directors and a General Manager. The services and departments
operated by the Sunriver Owners Association, as well as the primary function of each, include:
1. Public Works and Fleet Services - Maintenance of roads, recreational paths and
recreational amenities under the direction of the Sunriver Owners Association.
2. Design and Compliance Department - Design review for new structures, aesthetic quality
of new development and compliance with development standards.
3. Environmental Services - Administration of fire and fuels regulations as well as any other
environmental issues of the community.
4. Fire and Police Services - The Sunriver Fire Department and Police Department described
above, operate under the direction of the Sunriver Owners Association.
5. Administration - The administrative offices oversee the day-to-day functions of each
component of the association.
The Sunriver Owners Association publishes a monthly newspaper distributed to members of the
association and the public.
D. Transportation planning.
1. Background/Existing Transportation Facilities in Sunriver. The Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community is accessed via public roadways. These include: South Century Drive and Cottonwood
Road. Both of these roadways lie within public rights-of-way and are maintained by Deschutes
County. South Century Drive and Cottonwood Road connect to Highway 97 which is the primary
corridor for vehicular travel throughout central Oregon. South Century Drive enters Sunriver near
the southern community boundary and extends to the residentially developed areas to the south and
west. Cottonwood Road enters Sunriver near the northern Sunriver boundary and ends within the
community.
Internal roads within Sunriver, except for roads within the Business Park, are private roads
which are open to the public, and are maintained by the Sunriver Owners Association. These roads
are paved and are generally 20 feet in width. Roads within the Business Park are public roads
which are maintained by the County. The internal roadway network was developed as part of the
original design and master plan for Sunriver. The network consists of a series of internal traffic
circles or roundabouts, from which spur roads lead to various areas within the community. All
areas within the community boundary are currently accessed by the privately maintained roadways.
PAGE 6 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
A bicycle/pedestrian path system has been developed and integrated throughout the community.
Aside from the recreational opportunities provided by the path system, the paths serve as an
alternative to vehicular travel as they connect the residential, commercial, school and recreation
areas of the community. The paths are paved, maintained in good condition by the Sunriver
Owners Association and are used extensively during times of the year when weather permits.
2. Future Transportation Needs.
The existing privately maintained roads and bicycle/pedestrian paths adequately serve the travel
needs of the residents and visitors to Sunriver. The existing roads and pathways provide access to
all platted and developed areas within the community. There is no projected need for future roads
to serve the anticipated development except, possibly within the Sunriver Business Park. Currently,
there is only one ingress/egress point from South Century Drive to the Business Park. Future
development within the Business Park may warrant an additional entrance to the Business Park
from South Century Drive or improvements to the existing entrance from South Century Drive in
the future.
South Century Drive and Cottonwood Road are both operating at levels below the vehicular
capacity and at acceptable levels of service. In the area between the entrance to the Sunriver
Village Mall and the Business Park, the 1996 average daily traffic figures for South Century Drive
were approximately 3,380 trips per day. This figure is below the general capacity of 7,000 trips per
day. Many of the vehicles traveling this roadway are passing through the community,. not
necessarily to Sunriver, as this road provides a direct link from Highway 97 to the surrounding rural
subdivisions. Cottonwood Road, which only extends between Highway 97 and the community
boundary, is not subject to the same volume of pass through traffic that occurs on South Century
Drive. Thus, the traffic figures for this roadway are much lower at approximately 2,600 trips per
day.
Road widening improvements were completed in 1996 by the County for the segment of South
Century Drive between Highway 97 and the entrance to the Sunriver Business Park. Improvements
to the entrance of the Business Park itself were also completed. The improvements were done to
improve the safety and longevity of the roadway. Future ilmprovements to County roads outside of
Sunriver, including the intersection of South Century Drive and Highway 97 afe addfessed were
completed in 2007 as part of the County Transportation System Plan.
E. Policies.
1. Land use policies.
a. General Land Use Policies.
1. Land use regulations shall conform to the requirements of OAR 660 Division 22 or any
successor.
2. County comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall ensure that new uses
authorized within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community do not adversely affect
forest uses in the surrounding Forest Use Zones.
3. To protect scenic views and riparian habitat within the community, appropriate setbacks
shall be required for all structures built on properties with frontage along the Deschutes
River.
4. Open space and common area shall remain undeveloped except for community amenities
such as bike and pedestrian paths, and parks and picnic areas.
5. Public access to the Deschutes River shall be preserved.
6. The County supports the design review standards administered by the Sunriver Owners
Association.
b. Residential District Policies.
1. Areas designated residential on the comprehensive plan map shall be developed with single
family or multiple family residential housing.
c. Commercial District Policies.
PAGE 7 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
I . Small-scale, low-impact commercial uses shall be developed in conformance with the
requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. Larger, more intense commercial uses
shall be permitted if they are intended to serve the community, the surrounding rural area
and the travel needs of people passing through the area.
2.
I tible with the existing pedestrian mail style of develepfaepA that sen,es as th
re
32. No additional land shall be designated Commercial until the next periodic review.
43. Multiple-family residences and residential units in commercial buildings shall be permitted
in the commercial area for the purpose of providing housing which is adjacent to places of
employment. Single-family residences shall not be permitted in commercial areas.
54. Approval standards for conditional uses in the commercial district shall take into
consideration the impact of the proposed use on the nearby residential and commercial uses
and the capacity of the transportation system and public facilities and services to serve the
proposed use.
d. Town Center District Policies.
1 Small-scale low-impact commercial uses shall be developed in conformance with the
requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. Larger, more intense commercial uses
shall be permitted if they are intended to serve the community, the surrounding rural area or
the travel needs of people passing through the area.
2 Development standards in the town center district should encourage new development that
is compatible with a town center style of development that serves as the commercial core of
the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The following policies should guide
development in the Town Center District in Sunriver:
(a) Combine a mixture of complementary land uses that may include retail offices,
commercial services residential housing and civic uses to create economic and social
vitality and encourage pedestrian use through mixed use and stand alone residential
buildings.
_(b Develop a commercial mixed-use area that is safe, comfortable and attractive to
pedestrians.
(c) Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high-density development that
minimizes the amount of land that is needed for development.
(d) Provide both formal and informal community gathering places.
(e) Provide visitor accommodations and tourism amenities appropriate to Sunriver.
(f) Provide design flexibility to anticipate changes in the marketplace.
(g) Provide access and public places that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
(h) Provide road and pedestrian connections to residential areas.
(i) Facilitate development (land use mix density and design) that supports public transit
where applicable.
(j) Develop a distinct character and quality design appropriate to Sunriver that will
identify the Town Center as the centerpiece/focal point of the community.
_(k) Ensure development consistent with the purposes policies and standards of this
section including compliance with all procedures and standards for implementation of
an approved Conceptual Site Plan.
de. Resort district policies.
1. Areas designated resort on the comprehensive plan map shall be designated resort, resort
marina, resort golf course, resort equestrian or resort nature center district on the zoning
map to reflect a development pattern which is consistent with resort uses and activities.
e_f. Business park district policies.
PAGE 8 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
I . A variety of commercial uses which support the needs of the community and surrounding
rural area, and not uses solely intended to attract resort visitors, should be encouraged.
2. Allow small-scale, low-impact commercial uses in conformance with the requirements of
OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. Larger more intense commercial uses shall be permitted if
they are intended to serve the community, the surrounding rural area and the travel needs of
people passing through the area.
3. Small-scale, low-impact industrial uses should be allowed in conformance with the
requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. No more intensive industrial uses shall be
allowed.
€g. Community district policies.
1. Areas designated community on the comprehensive plan map shall be designated
community general, community recreation, community limited or community neighborhood
district on the zoning map to reflect a development pattern which is consistent community
uses and activities.
2. Lands designated community shall be developed with uses which support all facets of
community needs, be they those of year round residents or part time residents and tourists.
3. Development shall take into consideration the unique physical features of the community
and be sensitive to the residential development within which the community areas are
interspersed.
gh. Airport district policies.
1. Future development shall not result in structures or uses which, due to extreme height or
attraction of birds, would pose a hazard to the operation of aircraft.
2. Future development should not allow uses which would result in large concentrations or
gatherings of people in a single location.
hi. Utility district policies.
1. Lands designated utility shall allow for development of administrative offices, substations,
storage/repair yards, distribution lines and similar amenities for services such as water,
sewer, telephone, cable television and wireless telecommunications.
ii. Forest district policies.
Uses and development on property designated forest that are within the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community boundary shall be consistent with uses and development of other
lands outside of the community boundary which are also designated forest on the Deschutes
County comprehensive plan map.
Forest district property shall be used primarily for effluent storage ponds, spray irrigation of
effluent, biosolids application and ancillary facilities necessary to meet Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality sewage disposal regulations.
The development of resort, residential or non-forest commercial activities on Forest district
lands shall be prohibited unless an exception to Goal 14 is taken.
2. Public facility policies.
a. General public facility planning policies.
1. Residential minimum lot sizes and densities shall be determined by the capacity of the
water and sewer facilities to accommodate existing and future development and growth.
2. New uses or expansion of existing uses within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community which require land use approval shall be approved only upon confirmation
from the Sunriver Utility Company that water and sewer service for such uses can be
provided.
b. Water Facility Policies.
1. Water service shall continue to be provided by the Sunriver Utilities Company.
c. Sewer Facility Policies.
1. Sewer service shall continue to be provided by the Sunriver Utilities Company.
PAGE 9 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
3. Transportation policies.
a. Transportation system maintenance policies.
1. Privately-maintained roads within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community boundary
shall continue to be maintained by the Sunriver Owners Association.
2. The bicycle/pedestrian path system shall continue to be maintained by the Sunriver Owners
Association.
3. The County will encourage the future expansion of bicycle/pedestrian paths within the Sunriver
Urban Unincorporated Community boundary in an effort to provide an alternative to vehicular
travel.
4. All public roads maintained by the County shall continue to be maintained by the County.
Improvements to County maintained public roads shall occur as described the County
Transportation System Plan.
(Ord. 2008-013 §1, 2008; Ord. 2003-027 §l, 2003; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord.
98-014 §1, 1998; Ord. 97-076 §2, 1997)
PAGE 10 OF 10 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
SUNRIVER MALL
APPLICATION
FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. REQUEST
In this legislative action, Applicant requests approval of an amendment to the County's
comprehensive plan text, and amendments to the County's zoning code to create a new zoning
district, the Town Center District. The new zoning district is designed for use in the commercial
core area of the urban unincorporated community of Sunriver, located approximately 15 miles
south of Bend off Highway 97. The property contemplated for future application of this district
is near the southern entrance to Sunriver (the "Property"). Attached to this narrative as Exhibit
A is a site map that depicts the boundaries of the Property. This map shows properties that may,
in a later proceeding, be found to be eligible for Town Center zoning. The bulk of the parcels
that make up the Property are located in the area currently referred to as the "Sunriver Mall."
Those parcels are currently designated Commercial. The map includes three parcels that are not
currently designated Commercial. One parcel (Parcel 12 on Exhibit A) is designated Multi-
Family Residential and two parcels (Parcels 5 and 15) are designated Community General.
II. SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION
Sunriver is located in the central portion of Deschutes County, approximately 15 miles
south of the city limits of Bend. Sunriver lies in the Upper Deschutes River Basin, with the
Deschutes River generally forming the western boundary of the community. Sunriver includes
approximately 3,374 acres which are bounded by the Deschutes National Forest on the east, west
and north sides. Small lot residential subdivision development is the predominant land use to the
south of the community boundary. However, Crosswater, a private residential/resort community
has also recently been developed in the area immediately south of Sunriver.
The Property is located near the center of Sunriver. It is bordered by Abbott Drive on the
south and west; by Beaver Drive on the east and by residential property on the north. The largest
component of the property is that area historically referred to as the Sunriver Village Mall. The
Village Mall was developed as an outdoor pedestrian mall and includes a variety of commercial
uses. The Property includes the commercial areas east of the Village Mall between Mall Drive
and Beaver Drive. The only residential property included in the proposal is Parcel 12, which
contains the Abbott House Condominiums. They are immediately adjacent to the Village Mall.
The Property includes two parcels currently zoned Community General. They are along Abbott
Drive near the entrance of the Village Mall and are undeveloped.
PAGE 1 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
III. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
In an effort to protect and enhance the commercial core area of Sunriver, the Applicant is
asking the County to adopt a new zoning district for Sunriver known as the Town Center
District. The purpose of this new district is to strengthen the commercial core area as the heart
of the community, improving its economic base and enhancing its appearance through high
quality design and construction. The new Town Center District will include a variety of
residential and commercial uses which will complement the existing features of Sunriver and
strengthen its character as a vacation destination and resort community.
The Applicant's current proposal has two parts. First, the Applicant is requesting a
legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to provide for the creation
of the new Town Center District in the Sunriver Unincorporated Community. Second, the
Applicant is proposing a legislative text amendment to the Deschutes County Code to add the
Town Center District to DCC Chapter 18.108. The new zoning district would be numbered DCC
18.108.055. The proposed land uses that will be allowed in the Town Center District are
identified in the proposed Town Center district code language included with the application. The
addition of a new zoning district requires minor text changes to the existing Sections 18.108.010
and 18.108.020. Finally, to accommodate some of the uses permitted in the Town Center
District, amendments are proposed to parking requirements in DCC 18.116 and to site plan
requirements of DCC 18.124.
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
A. Applicable Approval Criteria.
Pursuant to ORS 197.610, a local government may amend its comprehensive plan if, in
doing so, it complies with the requirements in ORS 197.610 through 197.625. The Applicant
must also demonstrate compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and the
administrative rules interpreting them.
B. Responses to Approval Criteria.
1. The Proposed Amendment Complies with Relevant State Statutes
ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625 contain the procedures a local government
must follow to amend its comprehensive plan. Pursuant to ORS 197.610, in cases where the
Statewide Planning Goals apply to the proposal, at least 45 days prior to the County conducting
the first hearing on the proposal, the County must submit the proposal to the Director of the
Department of Land Conservation and Development. A number of the Statewide Planning Goals
apply to the Applicant's proposal and, therefore, the County must submit the proposal to the
Director. The Applicant understands that the County is prepared to do so. Accordingly, this
approval criteria will be met. ORS 197.615 requires the County to submit to the Director a
notice of any amendment that the County adopts. This criteria can also be met. ORS 197.620
and 197.625 do not contain any requirements that serve as approval criteria.
PAGE 2 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
2. The Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Complies with
Statewide Planning Goals
a. Statewide Planning Goals.
In order for a county to amend its comprehensive plan, state law requires
that it make findings of compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines contained
in OAR 660-015-0000. Each Statewide Planning Goal is addressed below:
(1) Goal 1: Citizen Involvement.
The purpose of Goal I is to develop a citizen involvement
program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the
planning process
The County has a development code with procedures and
processes that insure citizens have the opportunity to be involved in all land use matters.
The application process for this proposal will follow the County's adopted process and
procedures. Notices of hearings will be posted and mailed as required and the public will
be provided opportunities to participate in public hearings.
(2) Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
The purpose of Goal 2 is to establish a land use planning process
and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and
to assure an adequate factual base./or such decisions and actions. Goal 2 contains the
standards local governments must meet when they adopt exceptions to any of the
Statewide Goals.
The County's Comprehensive Plan currently complies with the
requirements of Goal 2 and has been acknowledged as doing so. The proposal is being
made under the procedures provided for in the current plan and its implementing
ordinances by requiring the Applicant to prove compliance with all required approval
criteria. Because the Applicant's request does not involve adding any land to the
Sunriver Unincorporated Community, the Applicant does not have to demonstrate
compliance with the exception criteria in Statewide Planning Goal 2.
(3) Goal 3: Agricultural Lands.
The purpose of Goal 3 is to preserve agricultural lands.
The proposal does not include any property designated as
agricultural. The goal of preserving agricultural land will not be adversely impacted by
the proposal.
PAGE 3 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
(4) Goal 4: Forest Lands.
The purpose of Goal 4 is to conserve.forestlands by maintaining
the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible
economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and
harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound
management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for
recreational opportunities and agriculture.
The proposal does not include any property designated as forest
land. The goal of preserving forest land will not be adversely impacted by the proposal.
(5) Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas,
and Open Spaces.
The purpose of Goal 5 is to protect natural resources and
conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
The County's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Property as being
part of an urban unincorporated community and not as being within designated natural
resource, scenic or historic areas. The property is not designated as open space although
it has open spaces set aside within its boundaries. The proposal will preserve open spaces
within the property.
(6) Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resource Quality.
The purpose of Goal 6 is to maintain and improve the quality of
the air, water and land resources of the state.
The requirement of this goal is that any waste and process
discharges from future development, when combined with existing development, shall
not exceed the carrying capacity of air, water and land resources. The proposal will
result in a different zone being applied to the Property, but the uses that will be developed
under the new zone will be comparable to the uses currently developed. Currently the
uses on the property are primarily commercial with limited residential development, and
are served by a community water and waste treatment facility. Uses allowed under the
proposal will add residential components to commercial uses, but not to a level that will
exceed the capacity of the current systems. The private utility will have to confirm
capacity prior to approval of new development, which will ensure that the proposal will
not result in development that will exceed the carrying capacity of the land.
(7) Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and
Hazards.
The purpose of Goal 7 is to protect people and property from
natural hazards.
PAGE 4 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
The site contains no identified natural hazards and is not within
any 100-year flood plain.
The adoption of the Tourist Commercial district will not materially
alter the danger presented by wildfire. The amendment will allow for the construction of
taller buildings but the County's codes impose requirements to limit risks of harm caused
by wildfire. The Town Center zone imposes a limit on the density of residential
development in the Town Center district. The existing Commercial district and the State
UUC law do not impose limits on the density of residential development. Additionally,
the County's building codes and fire code regulations require fire hydrants and sprinklers
to protect the buildings in the Town Center district. The County code also requires 15%
landscaping and roads and hard surfaces in the district will help slow the spread of fire.
The Sunriver Owners Association plans to install a new roundabout at Beaver Drive and
the entrance road to Sunriver to improve traffic flows for the Town Center and area
homes. The improved road access will make it easier for Sunriver and Town Center
residents to evacuate from the Town Center and Sunriver in the event of wildfire. Two
other routes that lead to the north entrance to Sunriver are also available for use by new
residents of the Town Center in the event of a fire emergency.
Sunriver, also, is prepared to handle the risks presented by
wildfire. In 2005, the Sunriver Owners Association, Sunriver Fire Department, Oregon
Department of Forestry, US Forest Service, Deschutes County and Central Oregon Fire
Management completed a Community Fire Plan. This plan is a comprehensive plan that
outlines area fuel thinning priorities for consideration by federal land managers. The plan
includes the Sunriver Ladder Fuels Reduction Plan. According to information published
by Deschutes County, the plan meets or exceeds the intent of the Oregon Forestland-
Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997 and the Uniform Fire Code.
(8) Goal 8: Recreational Needs.
The purpose of Goal 8 is to satisfy the recreational needs of the
citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of
necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
This unincorporated community of Sunriver exists, in large part, to
provide varied recreational activities to residents and visitors. Sunriver and its
surrounding areas provide an abundance of opportunities to hike, bike, golf, fish, swim,
play tennis, picnic, canoe, boat, raft and countless other recreational activities. The
proposal will not result in an excessive demand for activities that would create the need
for more facilities. The proposal will enhance the opportunity for people to use the
existing facilities.
(9) Goal 9: Economic Development.
The purpose of Goal 9 is to provide adequate opportunities
throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and
prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
PAGE 5 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
The proposal will re-vitalize and enhance the existing commercial
core of Sunriver encouraging economic development. By adding residential and mixed
use development, the proposal will bring people to the core commercial area on a more
constant basis promoting the commercial uses that exist. It will also encourage new
commercial uses to locate in the core commercial area providing jobs.
(10) Goal 10: Housing.
The purpose of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of
citizens of the state.
Sunriver was not developed to meet any specific housing needs in
the County, but as a recreational development. Sunriver contains a mix of full time
residents, people who own vacation homes that they use periodically and visitors who
rent accommodations. The proposal will not negatively impact the County's ability to
provide adequate housing. If anything, the proposal will add residential units to Sunriver.
A number of the residential units will be fractionally owned, which makes it more
affordable for people to buy them and thus, use the facilities at Sunriver.
(11) Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services.
The purpose of Goal 11 is to plan and develop a timely, orderly
and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for
urban and rural development.
The water, sewer and storm water facilities within Sunriver are
privately owned and operated. Thus, the proposal will not result in any excessive
demand on those public facilities. The streets within Sunriver are also private. Thus, the
proposal will not result in excessive demand on public streets within Sunriver. The
impact of the proposal on public transportation facilities outside of Sunriver is addressed
below.
(12) Goal 12: Transportation.
The purpose of Goal 12 is to provide and encourage a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system.
The purpose of Goal 12 is to provide and encourage a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented throughout the
Transportation Planning Rule set out in OAR 660-12-0060.
Transportation Planning Rule
OAR Section 660-12-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR") sets forth the
relative criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments.
Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
PAGE 6 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or
a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of
this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.)
of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a
transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Response: The proposed text amendments do not seek to change the functional
classification of any transportation facility in the vicinity of the site.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Response: The proposed text amendments will not change standards implementing a
functional classification system.
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Response: The text amendments, if approved, will not apply to any land until a
subsequent land use review process is completed. Until that time, it is unknown if some,
all or none of the area that the Applicant believes is suited for inclusion in the Town
Center District will be rezoned and redesignated for Town Center development. As a
result, the appropriate time to apply this part of the rule is when the new text is applied to
land. Until that time, it is not possible for any Town Center District development to
occur. As a result, none of the actions that would violate these standards will be caused
by adoption of the proposed text amendments.
The Applicant recognizes that transportation system improvements may be needed if the
proposed zoning is applied to all land in the Sunriver Village area. County staff has
PAGE 7 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
agreed that the TPR will be addressed at the time the Town Center zone is applied to the
subject property.
(13) Goal 13: Energy Conservation.
The purpose of Goal 13 is to conserve energy.
The County's building code specifies the requirements for
buildings as it relates to energy conservation. The proposal will result in development
that must still comply with County building codes and thus, will be consistent with this
goal.
(14) Goal 14: Urbanization.
The purpose of Goal 14 is to provide for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban
employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to
provide for livable communities.
The policy behind this goal is to provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use and to accommodate urban population
and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land
and to provide for livable communities. The proposed amendment will not result in the
use of rural lands for urban uses. Sunriver is an existing urban community already
containing urban uses. The proposal will promote more desirable urban uses and a wider
variety of those uses. The proposal will allow for slightly more dense development
promoting the efficient use of the existing commercial core in Sunriver and enhance the
commercial area.
(15) Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway.
The purpose of Goal 15 is to protect, conserve, enhance and
maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational
qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
Goal 15 does not apply to this application because the Property
does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal.
(16) Goal 16: Estuarine Resources.
The purpose of Goal 16 is to recognize and protect the unique
environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands;
and
To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where
appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity
and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.
PAGE 8 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
Goal 16 does not apply to this application because the Property
does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal.
(17) Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands.
The purpose of Goal 17 is to conserve, protect, where
appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all
coastal Shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and
recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be
compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and
To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the
adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat resulting form the use
and enjoyment of Oregon's coastal shorelands.
Goal 17 is not applicable to this application because the Property
does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal.
(18) Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes.
The purpose of Goal 18 is to conserve, protect, where appropriate
develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and
dune areas; and
To reduce the hazard to human life and property.from natural or
man-induced actions associated with these areas.
Goal 18 is not applicable to this application because the Property
does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal.
(19) Goal 19: Ocean Resources.
The purpose of Goal 19 is to conserve marine resources and
ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and
social value and benefits to future generations.
Goal 19 is not applicable to this application because the Property
does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal.
b. Oregon Administrative Rules.
In order to amend its comprehensive plan, the County must also adopt
findings of compliance with those administrative rules that implement the Statewide Planning
Goals. The applicable administrative rules are located in Chapter 660-Land Conservation and
Development Department. Chapter 660, Division 12-Transportation Planning contains the
"transportation planning rule" and must be addressed when the new zoning district is applied to
land in Sunriver. OAR Chapter 660, Division 18-Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment
PAGE 9 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
must also be addressed. Finally, OAR Chapter 660, Division 22-Unincorporated Communities
must be addressed.
(1) OAR Chapter 660, Division 12-Transportation.
In addressing how the proposal complies with Statewide Planning
Goal 12 above, the Applicant has adequately addressed this approval criteria.
(2) OAR Chapter 660, Division 18-Plan Amendment and
Land Use Regulation Amendment Rule.
OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 implements ORS 197.610 through
197.625. Division 18 requires local governments to submit any non-exempt proposed
amendment to its comprehensive plan to the Director of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development ("DLCD") at least forty-five (45) days before the first
evidentiary hearing on adoption. Division 18 also contains the procedural steps local
governments and the DLCD are to follow, the notices required and the appeal rights.
The County's procedural rules provide that it will submit the
requested amendment to the Director more than forty-five (45) days prior to the
evidentiary hearing on adoption. The County intends to comply with all of the
procedural requirements in Chapter 660, Division 18. Thus, this criterion is satisfied.
(3) OAR Chapter 660, Division 22-Unincorporated
Communities.
The substantive requirements in Division 22 are located in 660-
022-0030-Planning and Zoning of Unincorporated Communities. An amendment to the
County's comprehensive plan must be consistent with the applicable provisions of that
section.
The current Commercial district in Sunriver allows residential
units in a nine-acre part of the Commercial district and in dwelling units located above
commercial uses. The Town Center zone continues to allow for residential development
in the Town Center but proposes to remove the 9 acre limit on residential development in
residential only buildings.
The current Commercial District in Sunriver allows large scale
buildings to be constructed in Commercial District. The Town Center district will also
allow large scale buildings when the development meets the requirements of the State
administrative rule. The restrictions of the administrative rule are incorporated into the
County's Town Center zoning district, as they were for the Commercial District.
(1) For rural communities, resort communities and urban
unincorporated communities, counties shall adopt individual plan and zone designations
reflecting the projected use for each property (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial,
public) for all land in each community. Changes in plan or zone designation shall.follow
PAGE 10 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
the requirements to the applicable post-acknowledgement provisions of ORS 197.610
through 197.625.
Response: Sunriver is an unincorporated community. The County
has adopted an individual comprehensive plan section for Sunriver and an individual
zoning code section. The current proposal to amend those sections is being processed
consistent with ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625, as explained in Section B.1 above.
(2) County plans and land use regulations may authorize any
residential use and density in unincorporated communities, subject to the requirements of
this division.
Response: The residential uses that will be permitted under the
proposed amendment are consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-022-0300.
Sunriver is an urban unincorporated community. Opponents have claimed that the
density of development in the TC zone is too dense and is not appropriate for an
unincorporated community. This part of the Statewide Goal rules makes it clear,
however, that this argument is without merit. This rule makes it clear that as residential
density is allowed in an unincorporated community. The density limit proposed by the
applicant, therefore, does not violate the applicable law.
(3) County plans and land use regulations may authorize only
the following new or expanded industrial uses in unincorporated communities: * * *
Response: The proposal does not include any industrial uses.
Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
(4) County plans and land use regulations may authorized only
the following new commercial uses in unincorporated communities:
(a) Uses authorized under Goals 3 and 4;
(b) Small-scale, low impact uses;
(c) Uses intended to serve the community and
surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area.
Response: The proposed comprehensive plan text amendment
expressly provides that commercial uses that can be permitted in the proposed Town
Center District are limited to small-scale, low impact uses or large scale uses that will
serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing
through the area. The proposed text incorporates these requirements in the list of uses
allowed in the Town Center District. Before a use other than a small-scale, low impact
use can be allowed, the County Planning Director or Hearings Officer must find that the
use will serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people
passing through the area. This is the same basic approach used by the County to assure
that other commercial uses in the Commercial District and Sunriver Business Park
PAGE 11 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
District comply with the State administrative rule. This approach was acknowledged by
the State when the County adopted its UUC zoning districts.
Most of the commercial uses allowed in the Town Center zoning
district are already allowed in the Commercial zoning district and are existing uses. The
existing uses are not subject to review for compliance with this rule as they are not "new
uses." The proposed comprehensive plan text amendment is written to require that all
new commercial uses fit into one of the three categories listed in the administrative rule,
above. First, the Town Center zone limits commercial uses to small-scale, low impact
uses unless it is demonstrated that the use proposed is intended to serve the community
and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area.
Small-scale, low impact uses are those that take place in a
commercial building of 8,000 square feet or smaller. OAR 660-022-0030(10). Sunriver
may also provide commercial uses in larger commercial buildings if the uses are intended
to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing
through the area. The Town Center district imposes the following requirement on
commercial and commercial recreational uses to assure compliance with this part of the
administrative rule:
C. Special Requirements for Large Scale Uses. Any of the uses listed in DCC
18.108.055(A)(5) or (A)(8) may be allowed in a building or buildings each exceeding
8, 000 square feet of floor space if the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds:
1. That the intended customers for the proposed use will come from the Sunriver
community and surrounding rural area. The surrounding rural area is the area
identified as all property within five miles of the boundary of the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community; or
2. The use will meet the needs of the people passing through the area.
This text requires a review of new commercial uses to assure that the uses will meet the
requirements of this code before they may be established in a building that is larger than
8,000 square feet. For instance, the community's grocery store is planning to occupy a
new building in the Town Center. It requires a building that is larger than 8,000 square
feet. It is a use that meets the needs of the Sunriver community and surrounding rural
area as it supplies groceries to Sunriver area residents. The County's Planning Director
or Hearings Officer will, however, be required to make this determination during review
of the Conceptual Site Plan and Site Plan for the grocery store. That will assure
compliance with this part of the administrative rule.
(5) County plans and land use regulations may authorize
hotels and motels in unincorporated communities only if served by a community sewer
system and only as provided in subsections (a) through (c) of this section: * * *
(c) New motels and hotels up to 100 units may be
allowed in any urban unincorporated community that is at lest 10 miles from any
urban growth boundary.
PAGE 12 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
Response: The proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan
will allow for the creation of a Town Center District. Hotels with up to 100 units will
be a use allowed in that zone. The County's acknowledged plan states that Sunriver is
12 miles from the closest urban growth boundary (Bend); therefore, hotels permitted by
the proposal will be consistent with this section.
Hotel units are not commercial uses for purposes of this
administrative rule. Instead, they are authorized and regulated separately from
commercial uses. Hotel units, however, meet the needs of people passing through the
area. These persons need overnight accommodations. Highway 97 is nearby. It is
used for long-distance, overnight travel. In this setting it is clear that hotels meet the
needs of travelers.
(6) County plans and land use regulations shall ensure that
new or expanded uses authorized within unincorporated communities do not adversely
affect agricultural or forestry uses.
Response: The proposal will allow for the creation of a Town
Center District. This district is designed for use in the commercial core of Sunriver.
Currently, the development in that area is isolated from any agricultural and forestry uses
and thus, does not adversely affect either use. The creation of a Town Center District in
the same area that will contain similar commercial uses will likewise not adversely affect
any agricultural or forestry uses.
(7) County plans and land use regulations shall allow only
those uses which are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service
of transportation facilities serving the community, pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)
through (c).
Response: The proposed Town Center District will allow for
principally small scale commercial development, some large scale commercial
development and residential development. Although some of the uses may be combined
in a mixed use development, the uses are comparable in intensity to the uses currently in
existence. For that reason, the proposed uses are consistent with the current identified
function, capacity and level of service of transportation facilities serving Sunriver. The
Applicant recognizes that if the Town Center District is eventually applied to all property
eligible for that designation, mitigation may be required to assure that some
transportation facilities continue to function at acceptable levels. The Applicant worked
with County and ODOT staff in preparation of a traffic study. The study identified
potential mitigation such as the signalization of the ramps at South Century and Highway
97. The appropriate mitigation requirements will be determined during review of the
zone change application.
(8) Zoning applied to lands within unincorporated
communities shall ensure that the cumulative development:
PAGE 13 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
(a) Will not result in public health hazards or adverse
environmental impacts that violate state or federal water quality regulations; and
Response: The proposed Town Center District will allow
for principally small scale commercial development, some large scale commercial
development and residential development. None of the allowed development
would pose a public health hazard or adverse environmental impact. None of the
permitted uses will emit hazardous material into the air or water and thus, would
not violate any state or federal water quality regulations.
(b) Will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or
of existing water supply resources and sewer services.
Response: The proposal will result in a different zone
being applied to the Property, although at this time, it is uncertain that it will be
applied to all of the Property. In any event, the types of uses that will be
developed under the new zone will be comparable to the uses currently
developed. Currently the uses on the property are commercial and are served by a
community water and waste treatment facility. Uses allowed under the proposal
will add residential components to commercial uses, but not to a level that will
exceed the capacity of the current systems. The private utility will have to
confirm capacity prior to approval of any development proposal, which will
ensure that the proposal will not result in development that will exceed the
carrying capacity of the land.
(9) County plans and land use regulations for lands within
unincorporated communities shall be consistent with acknowledge metropolitan regional
goals and objectives, applicable regional.functional plans and regional framework plan
components of metropolitan service districts.
Response: The current comprehensive plan is consistent with all
regional plans. The proposed amendment will allow for an additional zoning district, the
Town Center District, that will contain uses largely similar to the uses already existing
within the relevant part of the Sunriver community. None of the uses allowed by the
proposed amendment would cause the comprehensive plan to be inconsistent with any
regional plans.
(10) For purposes of subsection (b) of section (4) of this rule, a
small-scale, low impact commercial use is one which takes place in an urban
unincorporated community in a building or building not exceeding 8, 000 square feet of
floor space, or in any other type of unincorporated community in a building or buildings
not exceeding 4, 000 square feet of floor space.
Response: The proposed text amendment provides that
commercial development in the proposed Town Center District must be in conformance
with OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. In addition, the proposed text for the Town Center
District incorporates the standard set forth above.
PAGE 14 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
(I1) For purposes of subsection (c) of section (3) of this rule, a
small-scale, low impact industrial use is one which takes place in an urban
unincorporated community in a building or buildings not exceeding 60,000 square feet of
floor space, or in any other type of unincorporated community in a building or buildings
not exceeding 40, 000 square feet of floor space.
Response: Sunriver is an urban unincorporated community. The
proposed Town Center District text includes the above limitation.
V. DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
A. Applicable Approval Criteria.
The Applicant is proposing to amend three chapters in the Deschutes County Code
("DCC"). First, the Applicant is proposing to amend DCC 18.108 to add a new zoning district to
those that exist within the Sunriver Unincorporated Community. The new district will be the
"Town Center District" and will be designated as Section 18.108.055. As described previously,
the proposed Town Center District is designed to revitalize the commercial core of Sunriver.
The proposed text for the Town Center District will permit a mix of residential and commercial
uses that will serve the needs of the residents of Sunriver and people who visit. The proposed
district will permit development that is more concentrated and intense than the existing uses, but
are necessary to create the vibrant feel the Applicant believes is necessary to revitalize the area.
The creation of the Town Center District will require limited amendments to other
sections within Chapter 18.108. Section 18.108.010, the purpose statement, must be amended to
reflect 17 zoning districts rather than 16. Section 18.108.020(A) must be amended to add the
Town Center District as one of the districts subject to the approvals set forth in that section.
Finally, the Applicant is proposing amendments to the solar setback requirements referred to in
Section 18.108.020(B). The Applicant is proposing that the solar setback requirements in
Section 18.116.180 only apply to the exterior boundary of the Town Center District and not to
the interior lot lines. The type of development required to create the vibrant town center
atmosphere cannot be accomplished if the solar setbacks apply to interior lot lines.
Second, the Applicant is proposing an amendment to DCC 18.116.030 to reduce the
parking spaces required within the Town Center District to match the needs of a mixed use resort
town center. Third, the Applicant is proposing minor changes to DCC 18.124.070 to eliminate
conflicts with the proposed text of the Town Center District. Specifically, development within
the Town Center District will not have to meet the requirement of outdoor private space or
shared outdoor recreation space, because the District relies upon district-wide open space for
those purposes. Also, commercial buildings within the Town Center District will not be subject
to DCC 18.124.070 D because the District requires a 10-ft. setback.
Fourth, the applicant has proposed to amend DCC 18.04.030, the definitions section of
the County zoning ordinance to update the definition of a hotel unit to include hotel suites. The
applicant has also proposed new definitions for uses allowed in the Town Center District. These
include definitions for a live/work residence, lock-off area and mixed use structure.
PAGE 15 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
Finally, the applicant proposed a residential density limit for the Town Center District to
prevent the Town Center District from becoming too crowded. Currently, no density limit
applies to the Sunriver Commercial District. No density limit is required for the Town Center
District by the State's urban unincorporated communities rules. At present, the residential
density of the Commercial District is constrained by the height limits of the C District and by the
requirement that commercial units, other than the Fremont Crossing area residential units, be
constructed above commercial development.
The applicant agreed to apply the residential density limits to hotel units used for
transient lodging even though these units are not residential dwelling units. Hotel units do not
have the same impacts on the community as multi-family residential units due to their small size
and short-term occupancy. Hotel units are typically smaller than multi-family residences. A fair
number of hotel units are vacant during off-peak periods. As a result, it was determined that
each hotel unit should be counted as one half a residential dwelling unit. To assure that this
discount would be applied only where the small hotel unit size assumption is accurate, the one-
half "discount" was applied only to hotel units that are 800 square feet or smaller.
The SROA requested that the developer agree to impose a cap on the number of hotel
units that can be counted as one half a dwelling unit. SROA was concerned that the discount
could lead to the overdevelopment of hotel units and a higher number of visitors in the Town
Center than would be acceptable to Sunriver owners. As a result, the applicant agreed that a
maximum of 100 hotel units could be counted as one half a dwelling units. County staff objected
to this limit, claiming the cap would be difficult to track. As a result, the applicant agreed that
the one-half dwelling unit count would apply only to the first hotel development regardless of its
size. As hotel units are limited to 100 units per building, no more than 100 hotel units can be
counted as one-half a dwelling unit.
The use of the hotel unit discount will encourage the developer to locate a hotel in the
Town Center District. A hotel will help support businesses in the Town Center District. Hotel
guests typically shop and dine out when vacationing in a hotel and spend more money per day
than do residents.
A special density calculation was also agreed upon by SROA and the developer for multi-
family dwellings that contain lock-off areas. Typically, the entire dwelling unit would count as
one dwelling unit. SROA was concerned that units with lock-off areas would have a greater
impact on the community than units that do not have lock-off areas as these areas may be rented
separately. To address this concern, the developer agreed that lock-off areas must be counted as
an additional one-half dwelling unit for a total of one and one-half dwelling units for one multi-
family unit that contains a lock-off area. This rule applies to the first 200 multi-family units that
have such areas. This approach is appropriate because lock-off areas may be used as an integral
part of the larger unit with no increase in the intensity of the use of the multi-family unit. Also,
lock-off areas are small and do not provide a separate, full-time residence.
The SROA asked that a limit be placed on the number of lock-off areas that can be
counted as one-half a dwelling unit. The SROA and the developer agreed to a limit of 200 lock-
off areas. Once 200 areas are created, each lock-off area must be counted as a second full
PAGE 16 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
dwelling unit. This provision is a compromise solution designed to limit the overall impact that
might be caused by treating lock-off areas as one-half a dwelling unit.
The proposed text amendments must comply with the post-acknowledgement provisions
of ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625 and the County's comprehensive plan. To allow for the
text amendment to the DCC, the Applicant has proposed amendments to the County's
comprehensive plan. Thus, it is appropriate to assess the proposed text amendments to the DCC
against the comprehensive plan as it would appear if amended.
B. Response to Approval Criteria.
1. The proposed text amendment complies with relevant State statutes.
As explained above in Section B.1, the Applicant's request is being processed
consistent with ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625, with all of the required notices to the
Director of the DLCD. This criterion will be met. No proposed change violates a State statute.
2. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant's proposed amendment must be consistent with the applicable
provisions of the County's comprehensive plan. The most relevant section is Section 23.40.025,
which is the section specific to the Sunriver Unincorporated Community.
a. 23.40.025 Sunriver Unincorporated Community.
Following the LCDC's adoption of OAR 660-22-Unincorporated
Communities in 1994, the County designated Sunriver as an urban unincorporated community.
As part of that process, the County updated its comprehensive plan and the zoning regulations
for Sunriver to be consistent with OAR 660-22. The zoning regulations adopted for Sunriver at
that time were consistent with the County's comprehensive plan.
The current proposal will add one zoning district, the Town Center
District. The text of that proposed district is consistent with Section 23.40.025 of the County's
comprehensive plan and will not create any inconsistency with other sections of the County's
plan.
One of the reasons the County decided to classify Sunriver as an urban
unincorporated community was because that designation offered the greatest practical degree of
flexibility for future growth and development in Sunriver. The commercial core of Sunriver,
commonly referred to as the Village Mall, is decaying. The Village Mall lacks the diversity of
uses that will attract visitors and businesses which create the vibrant commercial area desired by
both residents and visitors. The creation of a Town Center District that permits a variety of uses,
including mixed residential/commercial uses, will bring people to the central core. The increase
in the number of people coming to the core will support desirable retail businesses, create
employment opportunities and enhance the appearance of the commercial core. Thus, the
creation of the Town Center District is consistent with the designation of Sunriver as an urban
unincorporated community.
PAGE 17 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
The proposed text amendments to DCC 18.108.010 and 18.108.020 will
make those sections consistent with adding a new zoning district and assure that uses in the
Town Center District are subject to site plan review when the Town Center designation is
applied to specific property. The proposed text amendment to DCC 18.116.030 will provide
needed flexibility in the County's parking requirements to facilitate the type of uses that are in a
Town Center development. A Town Center style of development is less reliant on parking than
most other development and can employ alternative methods to meet parking demands. Finally,
the proposed text amendment to DCC 18.124.070 makes the site plan review criteria consistent
with the substantive development standards for the Town Center District.
Section 23.40.025 E.1(d) contains the land use policies for the Town
Center District. The proposed text for the Town Center District permits the types and mixture of
uses identified in that section, subject to the limitations and restrictions derived form OAR
Chapter 660, Division 22. The development standards contained in the proposed Town Center
District will encourage new development that is compatible with a town center style of
development, but will preserve open space by promoting an efficient use of land. The policies
for land use in Section 23.40.025 E.1(d) will be met.
Section 23.40.025 E.2 contains the public facilities policies for Sunriver.
The services within Sunriver commonly thought of as public facilities are supplied by the
Sunriver Utility Company. Before any new use is approved in the Town Center District, the
Sunriver Utility Company will need to confirm the availability of water and sewer service.
3. Other Comprehensive Plan Provisions.
The approval of the proposed text amendments to add the Town Center
District will not create any inconsistency with other provisions of the comprehensive plan.
Those provisions of the comprehensive plan that may be impacted by the text amendment are set
forth below:
a. Urbanization.
The area that will be included within the Town Center District is already
committed to urban development. The amendment will not be inconsistent with this section.
b. Economy.
The proposed text amendments will allow for more diverse development
that will create additional opportunities for businesses within Sunriver. It will enhance the
economy.
C. Transportation.
The transportation element of the County's comprehensive plan is
primarily definitional and does not contain text that serves as relevant approval criteria.
PAGE 18 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
d. Transportation System Plan.
The County's Transportation System Plan is written to implement OAR
660, Division 12 (the "Transportation Planning Rule"). The creation of a new Town Center
District in the abstract will not impact the County's Transportation Plan because the zone will
not be applied to any specific property until subsequent land use applications are processed. The
most appropriate time to examine whether uses allowed under the Town Center District have an
impact on transportation facilities and whether specific mitigation is required, is when those
subsequent applications are submitted. The Applicant worked with County and ODOT staff in
preparation of a traffic study. The study identified potential mitigation such as the signalization
of the ramps at South Century and Highway 97. The appropriate mitigation requirements will be
determined during review of the zone change application.
e. Public Facilities and Services.
Prior to any new development occurring under the proposal, the Sunriver
Utility Company must assure available facilities and services. Thus, this element of the
comprehensive plan will be satisfied.
f. Recreation.
The proposal will not overburden the existing recreational facilities and
will encourage people to visit Sunriver to enjoy the existing recreational opportunities.
g. Energy.
The Town Center District standards promote a clustered, more dense
development with multiple uses in close proximity to one another. Visitors and residents will
combine activities with a single trip to the town center and thus, save energy.
h. Citizen Involvement.
All development under the Town Center District must undergo a
conceptual site plan process and site plan review. Some uses require conditional use approval.
Those processes are public and allow for citizen involvement.
4. Parking Requirements.
Applicant is requesting modifications to the off-street parking
requirements for residential uses within the Town Center District. Applicant is proposing a new
section that applies only in the Town Center District and would be 18.116.030.D.9. This
proposal is described in the text amendment documents that the applicant has filed with the
County and refined during the course of the land use hearings related to this proposal.
In addition, Applicant is proposing amendments to various provisions
within DCC 18.116.030.E.
PAGE 19 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
a. Applicant's Support for Proposed Amendments.
Applicant's consultants have reviewed parking requirements for the Town
Center (TC) District with planning staff and agree that the methodology for determining
appropriate parking supply should be based on standard resources, such as the ITE Parking
Generation manual (Reference 1). However, as discussed in the manual, Applicant believes that
other resources and factors should also be considered. On page 2, the manual states:
"Parking Generation is only the beginning point of information to
be used in estimating parking demand. Local conditions and area
type can influence parking demand. Parking Generation's wide
array of data blends many site conditions and may not best reflect
local conditions.... It represents only the beginning of information
that may be necessary to accurately determine what the parking
demand may be for a specific land use given unique site
characteristics."
The proposed Town Center District is intended to be a mix of interrelated land uses, specifically
identified, designed, and developed to be mutually supportive. Considerable efficiency in
parking is to be expected because the economic viability of the district depends to a large degree
on internalized demand for restaurant and retail activities. The Parking Generation manual
briefly addresses the potential benefits of mixed use developments in Appendix B. The manual
states the following:
"The hourly variation in parking demand for the individual land
uses can result in conditions where the parking demand for one
land use is high while the demand for a different land use is
low.... The end result can be a reduction in overall peak parking
demand."
Further, the manual references the reference book, Shared Parking, by the Urban Land Institute
(ULI) as a resource for estimating parking demand for mixed use developments. The proposed
methodology identifies both the ITE Parking Generation manual and the ULI Shared Parking .
book as appropriate references that should guide the parking needs estimates for specific
developments. Applicant believes it has proposed a methodology for estimating parking needs in
unique development conditions, while maintaining the opportunity and authority for staff to
ensure that reasonable standards and resources are applied. In this way, Applicant seeks to
provide flexibility in a manner that still provides certainty to the County.
The first step in the proposed methodology is to identify the appropriate
minimum parking ratio to be applied. Deschutes County code has minimum parking ratios for
residential development; however, this code does not take into account the use patterns of a
mixed-use, condo-hotel resort village for which our Town Center District has been patterned.
Included in the attached Table 1 above are the parking requirements for resort developments
(Telluride, CO; Copper Mountain, CO; Keystone, CO; Scottsdale, AZ; and Steamboat Springs,
CO) that have been developed in a similar manner. These communities typically have two types
PAGE 20 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
of residential units: multi-family townhomes developed on the outskirts of the mixed-use core
and condo-hotel units developed above first floor retail space.
The townhomes are larger and cater to those buyers who want more space
and have higher parking requirements than hotel or condominium buyers. However, the
townhomes still function as vacation homes due to their resort location and have lower parking
needs than full-time residences located away from resort communities.
The condo-hotel units are smaller in size and cater to vacation users who
want to be at the center of the retail activity in the resort community. These users typically either
drive a single car or take a shuttle from the airport since they can walk, bike or ride a resort
shuttle to their activities which are all located in close proximity to the village. The condo-hotel
units are specifically designed and operated to allow purchasers to place their residence into a
rental pool. The rental pool serves to keep "warm beds" in the village to provide a resident
population to provide customers for the retail space. Parking for these residences is placed
directly beneath the structures and is not deeded to individual residences to allow parking to be
shared and managed when the building are not completely occupied. Parking restrictions are
written into the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the building and articulated
to each renter at the time that a rental agreement is signed. The parking requirements proposed
for the Town Center District are based on the experiences of this wide array of resort
communities. Applicant believes that its methodology and conclusions support its proposed
amendments to DCC 18.116.30.
PAGE 21 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-013 (4/9/2008)
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 18, of the
Deschutes County Code Zoning Code, and
Declaring an Emergency.
ORDINANCE NO. 2008-015
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2007, SilverStar Development submitted an application to amend the
Deschutes County Code ("DCC"), Title 18, zoning regulations for the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community ("UUC"); and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would create a new Town Center zoning district within the
Sunriver UUC; and
WHEREAS, he Planning Commission held public hearings on September 27, November 8 and
December 13 and, on January 10, 2008, forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") a
recommendation of approval with proposed conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after public hearings on April 9 and April 30, 2008 and
concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the zoning regulations; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04.030, Definitions, is 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 stfikethfough.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.108, Urban Unincorporated Community Zone in a- Sunriver, is
amended to read as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new
language underlined and language to be deleted in stfikethfou .
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in stfikethfau
Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"D" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be
deleted in °'ri'~gh.
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B", attached to Ordinance 2008-013
and incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-015 (4/9/08)
Section 6. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Dated this of 12008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of 1St Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Record of Adoption Vote
TAMMY (BANEY) MELTON, VICE CHAIR
MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER
day of , 2008.
day of )2008.
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Michael M. Daly
Dennis R. Luke
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Effective date: day of 12008.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-015 (4/9/08)
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.
"Health and fitness facility" means a building or series of buildings within which recreational amenities are
included. Such facilities typically include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following
recreational amenities and uses: swimming pool, basketball court, racquetball court, weight room, exercise
room or tennis court, and instruction and counseling related to health and fitness.
"Height of building" means the vertical distance from grade to the highest point of the roof
"High-value farmland" means land in a tract composed predominantly of the following soils when they are
irrigated: Agency loam (2A and 213), Agency sandy loam (IA), Agency-Madras complex (313), Buckbert
sandy loam (23A), Clinefalls sandy loam (26A), Clovkamp loamy sand (27A and 28A), Deschutes sandy
loam (31A, 31B and 32A), Deschutes-Houstake complex (33B), Deskamp loamy sand (36A and 3613),
Deskamp sandy loam (37B), Era sandy loam (4413 and 45A), Houstake sandy loam (65A, 66A and 67A),
Iris silt loam (68A), Lafollette sandy loam (71A and 71B), Madras loam (87A and 8713), Madras sandy loam
(86A and 86B), Plainview sandy loam (98A and 98B), Redmond sandy loam (104A), Tetherow sandy loam
(150A and 150B) and Tumalo sandy loam (152A and 152B). In addition to the above described land, high-
value farmland includes tracts growing specified perennials as demonstrated by the most recent aerial
photography of the Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture taken prior to November 4, 1993. For purposes of this definition, "specified perennials" means
perennials grown for market or research purposes including, but not limited to, nursery stock, berries, fruits,
nuts, Christmas trees or vineyards but not including seed crops, hay, pasture or alfalfa.
"Highest shade producing point" means the highest shade producing point of the structure two hours before
and after the solar zenith on December 21.
"Height of beilding" means the N,e#ieal distanee from gFade to the highest point of the .
"Hotel/motel unit" means a single room, or suite of rooms, however owned including but not limited to the
condominium form of ownership within a multiple unit building that provides separately rentable
overnight sleeping accommodations on a temporary basis that are not available for residential use. Sueh
"Live/work dwelling" is a use permitted in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community, La Pine
Neighborhood Planning Area, and Residential Center District in which a business may be operated on the
ground floor. The ground floor commercial or office space has visibility, signage and access from the
PAGE 1 OF 2 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
primary street. To preserve the pedestrian orientation of the commercial or office space, alley access is
required for parking. The location of lots where live/work dwellings may be sited shall be specified on the
subdivision plat. The live/work housing types are defined below:
A. Live/work house: A single-family detached house with no more than 50 percent of the first story of the
building available as commercial or office space.
B. Live/work town home: A residential, fee simple town home unit in which a business may be operated.
The commercial or office portion of the building shall be limited to the ground floor and may not
exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the entire building, excluding the garage.
"Live/work residence," for purposes of DCC 18 108.055 is a residential dwelling unit, designed for
occupancy by one family, in which a commercial business may be operated on the ground floor of the
residential unit.
"Lock-off Area," for purposes of DCC 18.108.055, means a part of one dwelling unit that has all of the
following characteristics, (a) a sleeping area that is separated by an interior, locking door that bars access
from the sleeping area to the remainder of the dwelling unit and (b the separated sleeping area has a
separate external point of access used to access the remainder of the dwelling unit; and (c) is used to
provide overnight accommodations on a temporary basis.
"Mixed Use Structure," for purposes of DCC 18.108.055 is a structure or building that contains residential
dwellings and/or resort hotel units that also contains commercial uses.
(Ord. 2008-015 § 1, 2008. Ord. 2007-005 § 1, 2007; Ord. 2007-020 § 1, 2007; Ord. 2007-019 § 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 §§l, 2, and 3, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §§1, IA and 113, 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 §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 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
Chapter 18.108. URBAN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY ZONE - SUNRIVER
18.108.010.
Purpose.
18.108.020
Standards for All Districts.
18.108.030.
Single Family Residential - RS District.
18.108.040.
Multiple Family Residential - RM District.
18.108.050.
Commercial - C District.
18.108.055
Town Center -TC District
18.108.060.
Resort - R District.
18.108.070.
Resort Marina - RA District.
18.108.080.
Resort Golf Course - RG District.
18.108.090.
Resort Equestrian - RE District.
18/108.100.
Resort Nature Center - RN District.
18.108.110.
Business Park - BP District.
18.108.120.
Community General - CG District.
18.108.130.
Community Recreation - DR District.
18.108.140
Community Limited - CL District.
18.108.150
Community Neighborhood - CN District.
18.108.160.
Airport - A District.
18.108.170
Utility - U District.
18.108.180.
Forest - F District.
18.108.190.
Flood Plain - FP Combining District.
18.108.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC) Zone - Sunriver is to provide standards and
review procedures for the future development of the urban unincorporated community of Sunriver. The
UUC Zone - Sunriver is composed of 1-66 17 separate zoning districts and one combining zone district, each
with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.108.
(Ord. 2008-015, §2, 2008; Ord. 2007-019, §2, 2007; Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
18.108.020. Standards in All Districts.
A. Approval Required. Any use in an RM, C, R, TC, RA, RG, RE, RN, BP, CG, CR, CL, CN, A, U or F
District shall be subject to DCC 18.124. All uses listed as conditional uses within the RS District are
also subject to the requirements of DCC 18.124.
B. Solar Setbacks. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements of DCC
18.116.180. Within the TC District, development is exempt from the solar provisions of DCC
18.116.180 unless the solar shadow projects outside the district. To the extent practicable, all
development shall take advantage of passive solar.
C. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by
applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or Deschutes County under
DCC 15.04 shall be met.
D. Off-Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the parking
provisions of DCC 18.116.
E. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10.
F. Excavation, Grading and Fill and Removal. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed
and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland shall be subject to DCC 18.120.050 and/or DCC
18.128.270.
G. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DCC 15.08.
(Ord. 2008-015, V, 2008; Ord. 2007-019 §2, 2007; Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
PAGE 1 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.108.030. Single Family Residential - RS District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. Single-family dwelling.
2. Recreational path.
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128 and a
conditional use permit:
1. Park, playground and picnic and barbecue area.
2. Fire station.
3. Library.
4. Museum.
5. Health and fitness facility.
6. Utility substations or pumping stations with no equipment storage or sewage treatment facilities.
7. Temporary subdivision sales office.
8. Community building.
9. Church.
C. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
D. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed, provided that the Planning
Director or Hearings Body may allow smaller lots approved pursuant to DCC Title 18 and consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designations for preservation of forested area or significant rock
outcroppings when these lots are internal to the subdivision or after a hearing if they are located on the
edge of the new plat.
1. Lot Area. Every lot shall have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet.
2. Lot Width. Every lot shall have a minimum average width of 60 feet, except that a corner lot shall
be a minimum of 70 feet.
3. Frontage. Every lot shall have a minimum width at the street of 50 feet, except that on an approved
cul-de-sac this may be reduced to 30 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet.
5. Side Yard. A side yard shall be a minimum of five feet for structures up to 21 feet in height. All
structures greater than 21 feet in height shall have a minimum side yard of 7.5 feet, including
additions thereto.
6. Rear Yard. The rear yard setback for properties which do not have a common area adjoining the
rear property line shall be a minimum of 25 feet. The rear yard setback is zero for properties with a
rear property line which adjoins a common area that is 50 feet or greater in depth. The rear yard
setback for properties which adjoin common area less than 50 feet in depth shall be calculated at six
inches for every one foot less than 50 feet. The depth of the common area adjoining the rear yard
shall be determined to be the average depth of the common area when measured at 90 degree angles
at 10 foot intervals along the entire length of the rear property line.
7. Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures shall be 35 percent of the lot
area.
(Ord. 2004-013 §11, 2004; Ord. 98-035 §2, 1998; Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997
18.108.040. Multiple Family Residential - RM District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. Two-family dwelling or duplex.
2. Multiple-family dwellings, apartment houses and dwelling groups including townhouses and
condominiums.
3. Uses permitted outright in the RS District.
4. Planned unit developments and redevelopment.
PAGE 2 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
5. Recreational path.
6. Residential home.
7. Residential facility.
8. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128
and a conditional use permit.
1. Park, playground and picnic and barbecue area.
2. Fire station.
3. Library.
4. Museum.
5. Utility substations or pumping stations with no equipment storage or sewage treatment facilities.
6. Off-street parking lots when contiguous to a less restrictive zoning district.
7. Community center.
8. Church.
9. Temporary sales office for on-site dwelling units.
10. Interval ownership and/or time-share unit or the creation thereof
11. Health and fitness facility.
C. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
D. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Duplexes, three-plexes and four-plexes:
a. Lot Area. Every lot shall have a minimum area of 5,000 square feet for the first dwelling unit,
plus the following minimum land area based upon the number of bedrooms per additional
dwelling unit in the following table:
Studio or Efficiency
750 s q. ft.
1 Bedroom
1,000 s q. ft.
2 Bedrooms
1,500 s q. ft.
3 Bedrooms
2,250 s q. ft.
4 Bedrooms
2,500 sq. ft.
The overall density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre.
b. Lot Width. Every lot shall have a minimum average width of 50 feet.
c. Frontage. Every lot shall have a minimum width at the street of 50 feet, except that on an
approved cul-de-sac this may be reduced to 30 feet.
d. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
e. Side Yard. There shall be a minimum side yard of five feet and the sum of the side yards shall
be a minimum of 15 feet. The side yards shall be increased by one-half foot for each foot by
which the building height exceeds 15 feet.
f. Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than five feet. The rear yard
shall be increased by one-half foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 15 feet.
g. Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures shall be 40 percent of the
total lot area.
Townhouses, condominiums, zero lot line dwellings and apartments:
a. There shall be no minimum lot area for apartments, townhouses, condominium developments
or planned unit developments provided, however, that the overall density shall not exceed eight
dwelling units per acre.
b. Setbacks. Yard setbacks, lot widths and lot coverage shall be determined at the time of site
plan approval.
PAGE 3 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
3. Single Family Residences.
a. Lot widths, yard setbacks and lot coverage shall be the same as provided in the RS District,
provided that the overall density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre.
E. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided for a minimum of two cars per dwelling unit.
(Ord. 2004-002 §22, 2004; Ord. 99-036 §1, 1999; Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
18.108.050. Commercial - C District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. Any combination of the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted
outright in the C district.
1. Recreational path.
2. Ambulance service.
3. Library.
4. Church.
5. Bus stop.
6. Community center.
7. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space housing any
combination o£
a. Retail/rental store, office and service establishment.
b. Art galleries
c. Dry cleaner and/or self-service laundry establishment.
d. Radio and television sales and service.
e. Radio and television broadcasting studios and facilities, except towers.
f. Restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge, including entertainment.
g. Automobile service station.
h. Technical and business school.
i. Catering establishment.
j. Crafts in conjunction with retail sales (occurring on premises, such as stained glass/pottery,
etc.).
k. Medical and dental clinic, office and laboratory.
1. Theater not exceeding 4,000 square feet of floor area.
8. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.108.050(C)(1).
9. Residential dwelling units constructed in the same building as a commercial use, subject to the
provisions of DCC 18.108.050(C)(2).
10. Post Office.
11. Administrative and office facility associated with a community association or community use.
12. Police facility.
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128
and a conditional use permit.
1. Public buildings and public utility buildings and structures.
2. Club, lodge or fraternal organization.
3. Commercial off-street parking lot.
4. Bus passenger station.
5. Interval ownership and/or time-share unit or the creation thereof.
6. Miniature golf
7. Bed and breakfast inn.
8. Inn.
9. Residential facility.
10. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space housing any
combination of
PAGE 4 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
a. Bowling alley.
b. Car wash.
c. Dancing or music school, nursery school, kindergarten and day-care facility.
d. Theater exceeding 4,000 square feet in floor area.
e. Veterinary clinic or kennel operated entirely within an enclosed building.
f. Automotive repair and maintenance garage, or tire store, provided the business is wholly
conducted within an enclosed building.
C. Use Limits.
1. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, allowed on the nine acres vacant as of December 31,
1997 in the C District, shall be subject to the provisions of DCC 18.108.040(C) and (D), and the
following requirements:
a. No dwelling unit shall have more than three bedrooms.
b. Individual dwelling units shall not exceed 2,250 square feet of habitable floor area.
c. One off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom within each dwelling unit,
with a maximum of two spaces allowed per dwelling unit.
2. Residential dwelling units constructed in the same building as a commercial use developed in the C
district shall be subject to the following requirements:
a. Residential dwelling units shall be developed above first floor commercial use.
b. No dwelling unit shall have more than two bedrooms.
c. Individual dwelling units shall not exceed 850 square feet of floor area.
d. One off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom within each dwelling unit.
3. Uses permitted either outright or conditionally in the C District shall not involve the transport of
chemicals which would present a significant hazard.
D. Special Requirements for Large Scale Uses. Any of the uses listed in DCC 18.108.050(A)(7) or DCC
18.108.050(B)(10) may be allowed in a building or buildings each exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor
space if the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds:
1. That the intended customers for the proposed use will come from the community and surrounding
rural area, or the use will meet the needs of the people passing through the area. For the purposes
of DCC 18.108.050(D), the surrounding rural area shall be that area identified as all property within
five miles of the boundary of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community;
2. The use will primarily employ a work force from the community and surrounding rural area; and
3. That it is not practical to locate the use in a building or buildings under 8,000 square feet of floor
space.
E. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
F. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yards shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 2003-026 § 1, 2003; Ord. 98-016 § 1, 1998; Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
PAGE 5 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.108.055 Town Center - TC District
A Uses Permitted Outright The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outri&ht in the TC
District.
1. Park or plaza.
2. Library.
3. Community center.
4. Visitors center.
5 A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space unless approved as a
Large Scale Use pursuant to DCC 18 108 055(C) housing any one or a combination of the
following uses:
a. Retail/rental store office, civic and service establishment.
b. Grocery store.
c. Art gallery.
d Restaurant bakM, delicatessen pub cocktail lounge including entertainment.
e Health care service including medical and dental clinic office pharmacy, and laboratory but
excluding nursing homes.
f. Health & fitness facility.
g. Barber, beauty shop or spa.
h. Child care center, preschool and daycare facility.
i. Bank.
j. Post office.
k. Veterinary clinic (without animal boarding facilities).
1 Crafts in conjunction with retail sales (occurring on premises such as sculpture, stained glass,
pottery, etc.).
m. Meeting room convention and banquet facility.
n. Property sales mortgage, management or rental office.
o. Movie theater.
6. Multi-family Residential, subject to paragraph (E)(1).
7 Developed recreational facilities outdoors or in a building, or buildings each not exceeding 8,000
square feet of floor space unless approved as a Large Scale Use pursuant to DCC 18 108 055(C)
including but not limited to the following facilities:
a. Indoor and outdoor swimming pools.
b. Ice skating rink.
c. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts.
d. Indoor and outdoor basketball court or other ball field.
e. Physical fitness facilities.
PAGE 6 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
f. Park, playground and picnic and barbeque area.
g. Walkways, bike paths, jogging paths.
h. Bowling alley.
i. Arcade.
8. Hotel with up to 100 hotel units in a single building,
9. Mixed Use Structure, subject to the rules of DCC 18.108.055(E)(2) and (3) and a limit of 8,000
square feet of floor space for commercial uses listed in DCC 18.108.055(A)(5) or recreational uses
listed in DCC 18.108.055(A)(8) unless said uses are approved as large scale uses pursuant to DCC
18.108.055(C).
10. Accessory uses to uses permitted outright, including, but not limited to, parking facilities private
roads, storage facilities, trash receptacles and recycling areas.
11. Similar uses to those allowed outright provided they are approved by the County in the decision
approving the Conceptual Site Plan described in DCC 18.108.055(K).
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted pursuant to the
provisions of DCC 18.128, Conditional Use Permits.
1. Public buildings and public utility buildings and structures.
2. Bed and breakfast inn.
3. Ambulance service.
4. Fire station.
5. Police station.
6. Senior housing/assisted living or active adult development, excluding nursing homes.
7. Bus passenger station.
8. Residential facility.
9. Live/work residence.
10. Stand-alone parking structure.
11. Accessory uses to the above-listed conditional uses.
C. Special Requirements for Large Scale Uses. Any of the uses listed in DCC 18.108.055(A)(5) or (A)(8)
may be allowed in a building or buildings each exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space if the
Planning Director or Hearings Body finds:
1. That the intended customers for the proposed use will come from the Sunriver community and
surrounding rural area. The surrounding rural area is the area identified as all property within five
miles of the boundary of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community; and/or
2. The use will meet the needs of the people passing through the area.
D. Form of Ownership/List of Uses.
1. The listing of allowed uses, above, does not seek to regulate the ownership of buildings or land. Any
lawful form of ownership is allowed in the TC zoning district.
2. The listing of uses in the Town Center zoning district is not intended to prohibit other uses in
Sunriver. Additionally, where a general use is listed in this zoning district that includes a more
PAGE 7 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
specific use listed in another zone in Sunriver, the specific listing elsewhere does not prohibit that
use from being conducted in the Town Center zoning district.
E. Use Limits.
1 The multi-family residential use allowed by DCC 18.108.055(A)(6) may not include commercial
uses but may include live/work residences and lock-off areas.
2 For each Mixed Use Structure in the TC District no more than 50% of the round floor square
footage not devoted to parking or storage areas shall contain or be used for residential or dwelling
purposes.
3 The area occupied by multi-family dwellings in a Mixed Use Structure and their related hallways
and accessory rooms shall not be counted when calculating the size of commercial buildings, for
purposes of compliance with DCC 18.108.055(A)(5) or (A)(8).
4. A live/work residence described in DCC 18.108.055(B)(9), above, is a residence in which one or
more walls of the residence adjoin another residence or a commercial building or use area of a
building. Where a parking garage is provided below a residence, the first floor above the garage is
the ground floor where the parking garage is built below the average finished grade and is
completely obscured from view on at least one side of the building. The commercial area of the
unit may not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the entire unit, excluding the garage. The
commercial area also shall not exceed 8,000 square feet in combination with other commercial
uses in the same building whichever is lower, unless the building has been approved as a part of a
Large Scale Use pursuant to DCC 18.108.055(C).
F. Building Height Regulations.
1. Except as provided herein no Mixed Use Structure shall be hereafter erected enlarged o
structurally altered to exceed 60 feet in heist.
2. One Mixed Use Structure shall be permitted in the TC District with a maximum height not to
exceed 75 feet so long as the building footprint of that portion of said building that exceeds 60 feet
is not greater than 40,000 square feet of the footprint.
3 Where a parking garage is provided beneath buildings or structures described in subsection (F)(1)
or (2) above the height of the building shall be measured from the highest point of the roof to one
of the following points:
i A point equal to the elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a 5
foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground
surface is not more than 10 feet above the lowest elevation adjacent to the building; or
ii A point equal to the elevation that is 10 feet higher than the lowest grade from the sidewalk or
ground surface described in subsection (i), above, when the sidewalk or ground surface
described in subsection (i) is more than 10 feet above lowest grade adjacent to the building.
4. The height of all other buildings for uses other than those described in subsections (F)(1)-(21
above, may not exceed 45 feet in height.
5. Projections and architectural elements such as chimneys, spires, clock towers, skylights, atriums,
flagpoles mechanical equipment and screens and other similar items that do not add habitable
interior floor area may be allowed to exceed the height limit by a maximum of 10 feet.
6. Buildings that comply with the height limitations of this subsection also comply with the view
protection requirement imposed by DCC 18.124.060(A).
PAGE 8 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
G. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed.
1. Lot area: no requirements.
2. Lot width: no requirements.
3. Lot depth: no requirements.
4. Front yard: the front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. Where a lot has more than one front yard,
only one front yard must meet the 10 feet minimum. Below-grade parking structures that are built
under private streets do not need to meet front yard setback requirements.
5. Side yard: no requirements.
6. Rear yard: no requirements.
7. Frontage: no requirements. Each lot shall have access to required parking areas and driveways and
to a private Sunriver road, via a perpetual easement recorded for the benefit of the subject lot.
H. District Setback.
1. All development, including structures, sight-obstructing fences over three feet in height and changes
to the natural topography of land, shall be set back from exterior Town Center District boundaries
by the following distances;
a. Where the Town Center District boundary borders a Commercial District, the setback will be 5
feet; and
b. Where the Town Center District boundary borders any other zoning district, the setback will be:
i. Any portion of a building that is 30 feet in height or lower shall be setback 10 feet from the
TC District boundary; and
ii. Any portion of a building that is over 30 feet and up to 45 feet in height shall be setback 20
feet from the TC District boundary; and
iii. Any portion of a building that is over 45 feet in height shall be setback 50 feet from the TC
District boundary.
2. Items allowed in this setback include, but are not limited to, pedestrian pathways street trees
planters, driveways, landscaping, and outdoor seating.
1. Residential Density. The overall residential density of the Town Center District shall not exceed 22
dwelling units per gross acre of the Town Center District. All residential dwelling units, hotel units and
lock off-areas of residential dwelling units count as one dwelling unit with the following exceptions:
1. For the first hotel proposed on an approved conceptual site plan, each two hotel units that do not
exceed 800 square feet in size shall be counted as one dwelling unit. Any part of a hotel unit
designed to allow it to be rented separately from the rest of the hotel unit shall be counted as a
karate hotel unit.
2. Each of the first 200 multi-family dwellings with a lock-off area shall be counted as one and a half
dwelling units.
J. Zone Coverage.
1. Development in the TC zoning district with buildings and enclosed structures is limited to a
maximum of fifty percent of the gross acreage of the TC District.
PAGE 9 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
2 The total square footage of building footprints of Multi-family Residential buildings that are subs ect
to the limits of DCC 18.108.055(E)(1) is limited to a maximum of twenty percent of the gross
acreage of the TC District.
3 Buildings and enclosed structures include any deck that is more than 12 inches above finished grade
and all areas within any screened enclosure permanently affixed to the round.
4 The following do not count as buildings or structures for purposes of determining zone coverage:
a Eaves and any drivewayroad walkway, deck patio plaza or porch that is 12 inches or less
above finished grade (excot with affixed improvements that exceed 12 inches); and
b. Parking areas on or below finished grade.
K. Conceptual Site Plan.
1 The purpose of the Town Center District is to allow a mix of commercial, residential and
recreational uses that will create a vibrant commercial core for the Sunriver community. In order to
assure that the commercial nature of the district is retained and protected and to assure that district-
wide requirements will be met a conceptual site plan is required This plan will not be the detailed
site-specific site plan required by DCC Chapter 18.124. Instead the conceptual site plan will
provide a master plan that shows the approximate locations of future land uses allowed in the Town
Center District and will provide a tool to assure compliance with district-wide development
standards.
2 Prior to approval of a site plan or conditional use permit an applicant must file for approval of a
conceptual site plan for all land in the TC zoning district. All land owned or controlled by the
applicant must be included on the conceptual site plan Land not under the ownership or control of
the applicant must be depicted on the conceptual site plan in its use at the time of submittal.
3. The conceptual site plan must include all of the following information:
a. Types of uses.
b. Site circulation.
c. Pedestrian Facilities.
d. Traffic impact study, as described in DCC 17.16.115,
e A traffic study with an analysis of site access points to Abbott Drive and Beaver Drive by a
registered professional engineer who specializes in traffic analysis work that describes
operational capacity and sight distance issues of those access points and the impact of
conceptual site plan development on those access points
f Identification of street system improvements if needed, based on the information provided by
the reviews required by (K)(3)(d) or (_K)(3)(e) above to support the proposed development and
a schedule for the construction of needed street improvements keyed to development
benchmarks such as vehicle trips; and
g. The projected locations where uses will be developed; and
h Approximate location of phase boundaries if phased development is proposed and the phasing
sequence; and
PAGE 10 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
i The projected location and projected range of size in square feet for commercial uses, and
j. The projected location and projected range in the number of dwelling units for residential use,
and
k. The projected footprint and location of new buildings and parking areas The exact footprints
and locations of buildings and parking areas shall be determined during site-specific site plan
review.
1. "Spot elevations" throughout the site at representative locations such as all areas for
residential hotel or commercial use pedestrian plazas, parking areas road intersections and at
length aloniz all roadways. "Spot elevations" will show existing and projected finished
elevations.
M. Identification of proiected areas in the Town Center that will meet the recreational needs of
district residents, including children.
4. The conceptual site plan shall demonstrate that to the extent possible with the information required
by DCC 18.108.055(K)(3) areas of future development are arranged so that the following standards
can be met at the time of site-specific site plan review:
a. All applicable provisions of DCC 18.108 055 including but not limited to the following-,
i. DCC 18.108.055(G)(4)• and
ii. DCC 18.108.055(H); and
iii. DCC 18.108.0550• and
iv. DCC 18.108.055(J).
b. DCC 23.40.025; and
c. DCC 18.124.060 (A)SE and I ; interpreted as described in DCC 18 124 055(L)(5) below.
5. Approval of the conceptual site plan does not authorize uses or development until a site specific site
plan and if needed conditional use approval is filed and approved
6 A conceptual site plan does not expire once development authorized by the plan has occurred Any
site-specific site plan that proposes development that involves a major modification to an approved
conceptual site plan shall be reviewed and approved as a modification of approval pursuant to DCC
22.36.040. The applicant shall not however, be required to show that the modification does not
involve a substantially new proposal or have substantially different impacts on neighboring
properties. The extent of the modification will however, affect the number of provisions of this
code subsection (K) that must be addressed in the modification review.
L. Application and approval process.
1. Applicants seeking site plan or conditional use approval shall demonstrate compliance with the
relevant provisions of DCC 18.108.055.
2. A site-specific site plan or conditional use application shall be consistent overall with the
conceptual site plan, unless amended. Adjustments may be made to building locations sizes
footprints, unit counts and phase boundaries shown on the conceptual site plan during site-specific
site plan review provided they do not constitute a change requiring modification of approval of the
conceptual site plan.
3 An applicant seeking site-specific site plan approval shall demonstrate that when site-specific
development is complete, a ratio of 150 square feet of commercial space to one dwellinu unit, as
PAGE 11 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
calculated using DCC 18.108.055(l) and (D(1)-(2 will be provided in the area subject to the
conceptual site plan When other site-specific site plans have been approved in the conceptual site
plan area a commercial area approved by a prior site plan may be counted toward meeting the
required ratio only if construction has been commenced or been completed.
4 The site-specific site plan shall include the projected finished and existing grade elevations of the
site indicating every foot of elevation change on the subject property.
5 Development within the Town Center District will be substantially more dense than development
elsewhere in Sunriver. This increased density will require changes to existing topography and
vegetation in the TC District. The requirements of the County's site plan ordinance shall be
interpreted to reflect this fact.
(Ord. 2008-015, ~2, 2008)
18.108.060. Resort - R District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in the R
District:
1. Resort facility developed in a building or buildings of any size which house any combination of:
a. Meeting room, convention and banquet facility.
b. Resort recreation facilities.
c. Property sales and rental office.
d. Hotel, motel and lodging facility with up to 100 units in a single building.
e. Maintenance facility associated with resort and recreation operations.
f. Storage building necessary for and associated with resort, recreation and/or property
development.
g. Administrative offices, support and service facilities commonly associated with resort and
recreation development and operations.
2. Restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge including entertainment and catering facilities which are
included within the same building as any of the uses listed in DCC 18.108.060(A)(1).
3. Retail sales, rental and repair services commonly associated with and included within the same
building as any of the uses listed in DCC 18.108.060(A)(1).
4. Interval ownership and/or time-share unit or the creation thereof.
5. Multiple family residential dwelling units subject to and consistent with the standards of the RM
District.
6. Recreational path.
7. Residential home.
8. Residential facility.
9. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space which conform with the
height regulations and lot requirements of the R District and house any combination of.
a. New restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge, including entertainment and catering facilities which
are not included within the same building as those uses listed in DCC 18.108.060(A)(1).
b. New retail sales, rental and repair services commonly associated with uses permitted outright or
conditionally in the R District which are not included within the same building as those uses
listed in DCC 18.108.060(A)(1).
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128
and a conditional use permit:
1. Public buildings and public utility buildings and structures as they may be appropriate to the R
District.
2. Church, club or fraternal organization.
PAGE 12 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
3. School.
C. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 40 feet in height.
D. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
18.108.070. Resort Marina - RA District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in the RA
District:
1. Marina.
2. Park, playground and picnic and barbecue area.
3. Recreational path.
4. Restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge existing as of March 31, 1998.
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
18.108.080. Resort Golf Course - RG District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in the RG
District:
1. Golf course.
2. Golf course accessory uses.
3. Recreational path.
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
PAGE 13 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 § 2, 1997)
18.108.090. Resort Equestrian - RE District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in the RE
District:
1. Equestrian facility.
2. Recreational path.
3. Park, playground and picnic and barbecue area.
4. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space which house any
combination of:
a. Retail sales, rental and repair services commonly associated with equestrian facilities.
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 § 2, 1997)
18.108.100. Resort Nature Center - RN District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in the RN
District:
1. Nature center.
2. Recreational path.
3. Observatory.
4. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space which conform with the
height regulations and lot requirements of the RN District and house any combination of:
a. Restaurant and food service commonly associated with and customarily appurtenant to the uses
permitted outright in the RN District.
PAGE 14 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
b. Retail sales, rental and repair services commonly associated with uses permitted outright in the
RN District.
B. Use Limits. The following limitations and standards shall apply to uses listed in DCC 18.108.100(A).
1. All structures shall be sited on those portions of the property which contain mature trees.
2. Mature trees shall be retained to the maximum extent possible considering physical constraints
associated with developing the property.
3. Development within the treed area shall occur in a manner whereby a minimum of 50 percent of a
finished structure will be screened from surrounding properties and portions of the subject property
which do not contain mature trees.
4. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the establishment of additional landscape
material to ensure that 50 percent of a finished structure will be screened from surrounding
properties and portions of the subject property which do not contain mature trees.
C. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
D. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 § 2, 1997)
18.108.110. Business Park - BP District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. Residential uses existing as of March 31, 1997.
2. Administrative, educational and other related facilities in conjunction with a use permitted outright.
3. Library.
4. Recreational path.
5. Post office.
6. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space housing any
combination of.
a. Retail/rental store, office and service establishment, including but not limited to the following:
i. Automobile, motorcycle, boat, recreational vehicle, trailer or truck sales, rental, repair or
maintenance business, including tire stores and parts stores.
ii. Agricultural equipment and supplies.
iii. Car wash.
iv. Contractor's office, including but not limited to, building, electrical, plumbing, heating and
air conditioning, painter, etc..
v. Construction equipment sales, rental and/or service.
vi. Exterminator services.
vii. Golf cart sales and service.
viii. Lumber yard, home improvement or building materials store.
ix. Housekeeping and janitorial service.
PAGE 15 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
x. Dry cleaner and/or self-service laundry facility.
xi. Marine/boat sales and service.
xii. Restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge including entertainment.
7. A building or buildings each not exceeding 20,000 square feet of floor space housing any
combination of
a. Scientific research or experimental development of materials, methods or products, including
engineering and laboratory research.
b. Light manufacturing, assembly, fabricating or packaging of products from previously prepared
materials, including but not limited to cloth, paper, leather, precious or semi-precious metals or
stones, etc.
c. Manufacture of food products, pharmaceuticals and the like, but not including the production of
fish or meat products, or the rendering of fats and oils.
d. Warehouse and distribution uses in a building or buildings each less than 10,000 square feet of
floor area.
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128
and a conditional use permit:
1. Public buildings and public utility structures and yards, including railroad yards.
2. A dwelling unit for a caretaker or watchman working on a developed property.
3. Law enforcement detention facility.
4. Parking lot.
5. Radio and television broadcast facilities.
6. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space housing any
combination of:
a. Bowling alley.
b. Theater.
c. Veterinary clinic and/or kennel.
7. A building or buildings each not exceeding 20,000 square feet of floor space housing any
combination of:
a. Warehouses and distribution uses in a building or buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of
floor area.
b. Distillery and beer/ale brewing facility, including wholesale sales thereof
c. Self/mini storage.
d. Trucking company dispatch/terminal.
e. Solid waste/garbage operator, not including solid waste disposal or other forms of solid waste
storage or transfer station.
C. Use Limits. The following limitations and standards shall apply to uses listed in DCC 18.108.110(A) or
(B):
1. A use expected to generate more than 30 truck-trailer or other heavy equipment trips per day to and
from the subject property shall not be permtted to locate on a lot adjacent to or across the street
from a lot in a residential district.
2. Storage, loading and parking areas shall be screened from residential zones.
3. No use requiring air contaminant discharge permits shall be approved by the Planning Director or
Hearings Body prior to review by the applicable state or federal permit reviewing authority, nor
shall such uses be permitted adjacent to or across the street from a residential lot.
D. Special Requirements for Large Scale Uses.
Any of the uses listed in DCC 18.108.110(A)(6) or (B)(6) may be allowed in a building or buildings
each exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space if the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds:
1. That the intended customers for the proposed use will come from the community and surrounding
rural area, or the use will meet the needs of the people passing through the area. For the purposes
PAGE 16 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
of DCC 18.108.110, the surrounding rural area shall be that area identified as all property within
five miles of the boundary of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community;
2. The use will primarily employ a work force from the community and surrounding rural area; and
3. That it is not practical to locate the use in a building or buildings under 8,000 square feet of floor
space.
E. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 45 feet in height.
F. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. Each lot shall have a minimum depth of 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet.
5. Side Yard. No side yard required, except when adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District and then the
required side yard shall be 50 feet. No side yards are required on the side of a building adjoining a
railroad right of way.
6. Rear Yard. No rear yard required, except when adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District and then the
rear yard shall be 50 feet. No rear yard is required on the side of a building adjoining a railroad
right of way.
7. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures shall be 50 percent of the
total lot area.
(Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
18.108.120. Community General - CG District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. School.
2. Utility substation, utility equipment storage and repair yard, and pump station.
3. Golf course.
4. Tennis court.
5. Swimming pool.
6. Park, playground and picnic and barbecue area.
7. Nature center.
8. Putting green.
9. Recreational path.
10. Equestrian facility.
11. Boat dock.
12. Health and fitness facilities.
13. Amphitheater.
14. Observatory.
15. Administrative and office facility associated with a community association or community use.
16. Police facility.
17. Fire station.
18. Public works facility.
19. Community center.
20. Church.
21. Warehouse and storage facilities accessory to and in conjunction with any use permitted outright in
this district.
22. Residential home.
23. Residential facility.
PAGE 17 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
24. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space which conform with the
height regulations and lot requirements of the CG District and house any combination of:
a. Limited food and beverage service customarily accessory to and in conjunction with any use
permitted outright or conditionally in this district.
b. Retail sales, rental and repair services commonly associated with uses permitted outright or
conditionally in the CG District.
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
18.108.130. Community Recreation - CR District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. Park, playground and, picnic and barbecue area.
2. Swimming pool.
3. Tennis court.
4. Basketball court.
5. Ball fields, including but not limited to, football, baseball, softball and soccer.
6. Running track.
7. Health and fitness facility.
8. Racquetball court.
9. Recreational path.
10. Winter sports facilities, including but not limited to ice skating rink and/or cross country ski center.
11. Facilities developed in conjunction with and which are customarily accessory to any use permitted
outright or conditionally in this district, including but not limited to restrooms, storage facilities,
parking areas and pavilions/shelters.
12. A building or buildings each not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space which conform with the
height regulations and lot requirements of the CR District and house any combination o£
a. Limited food and beverage service customarily accessory to and in conjunction with any use
permitted outright or conditionally in this district.
b. Retail sales, rental and repair services commonly associated with uses permitted outright or
conditionally in the CG District.
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
PAGE 18 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
18.108.140. Community Limited - CL District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses are permitted outright:
1. Picnic and barbecue areas, including picnic tables and benches.
2. Recreational path.
B. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet for bike and pedestrian paths, and picnic
tables and benches fixed to the ground.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard for bike and pedestrian paths, and picnic table and benches fixed to the ground shall be
a minimum of 10 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard for bike and pedestrian paths, and picnic table and benches fixed to the ground shall be
a minimum of 10 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
18.108.150. Community Neighborhood- CN District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. School.
2. Utility substation, pump station and, utility equipment storage and repair yard.
3. Sewage treatment facility.
4. Tennis court.
5. Swimming pool.
6. Park, playground and picnic and barbecue area.
7. Recreational path.
8. Equestrian facility.
9. Health and fitness facility.
10. Amphitheater.
11. Observatory.
12. Church.
13. Residential home.
14. Residential facility.
15. Daycare facility.
16. Administrative and office facility associated with a community association or community use.
17. Community center.
18. Police facility.
PAGE 19 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 98-016 §3, 1998; Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
18.108.160. Airport - A District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. Runway, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair.
2. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division.
3. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18.
4. Related uses which are customarily appurtenant to airports, including but not limited to hangars,
tie-down areas and parking facilities.
B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128
and a conditional use permit:
1. Farm accessory buildings and uses.
2. Utility facility necessary for public service, except landfills.
3. Golf course.
4. Park, playground, other recreational site or facility or community service facility.
5. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a
wetland subject to DCC 18.120.050 and/or DCC 18.128.270.
C. Use Limitations. In an A District, the following limitations and standards shall apply to all uses
permitted:
1. The height of any plant growth or structure or part of a structure such as chimneys, towers,
antennas, powerlines, etc., shall not exceed 35 feet.
2. In approach zones beyond the clear zone areas, no meeting place designed to accommodate more
than 25 persons for public or private purposes shall be permitted.
3. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.108.160 shall be accommodated on
the subject premises entirely off-street.
4. No use permitted by DCC 18.108.160 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private
street or road right of way.
5. No power lines shall be located in clear zones.
6. No use shall be allowed which is likely to attract a large quantity of birds, particularly birds which
normally fly at high altitudes.
D. Dimensional Standards. In an A District, the following dimensional standards shall apply:
1. The minimum lot size shall be determined subject to the provisions of DCC 18.108.160 relative to
setback requirements, off-street parking and loading requirements, lot coverage limitations or as
deemed necessary by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to maintain air, land and water
PAGE 20 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
resource quality, protect adjoining and area land uses and to ensure resource carrying capacities are
not exceeded.
2. An airport related use or structure located adjacent to or across the street from an existing
residential use or platted residential lot shall not exceed 70 percent lot coverage and shall require
off-street parking and loading areas.
3. The minimum setback between any structure and an arterial right of way shall be 100 feet. The
minimum setback between any structure and a collector right of way shall be 50 feet. The minimum
setback between any structure and all local streets shall be 20 feet.
4. The minimum setback between any structure and a property line adjoining a residential use or lot
shall be 50 feet.
5. The minimum lot frontage shall be 50 feet.
6. The minimum side setback between any structure and a property line shall be three feet, and the
minimum total of both side setbacks shall be 12 feet.
7. The minimum rear setback between any structure and a rear property line shall be 25 feet.
8. Utility Runway Visual Approach Zone. Slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at
the end of and at the same elevation as the primary runway surface and extending to a horizontal
distance of 5,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.
9. Runway Larger than Utility with a Visibility Minimum Greater than Three-Fourths Mile
Nonprecision Instrument Approach Zone. Slopes 34 feet outward for each foot upward beginning
at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary runway surface and extending to a horizontal
distance of 10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.
10. Transitional Zones. Slopes seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the side of and at
the same elevation as the primary runway surface and approach surface, and extending to a height
of 150 feet above the airport elevation. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height
limits beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as they approach surface and extending to
where they intersect the conical surface.
11. Horizontal Zone. Established at 150 feet above the airport elevation.
12. Conical Zone. Slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the periphery of the
horizontal zone and at 150 feet above the airport elevation and extending to a height of 350 feet
above the airport elevation.
(Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
18.108.170. Utility - U District.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
1. Utility substation, utility equipment storage and repair yard, and pump station.
2. Sewage treatment facility.
3. Utility transmission lines.
4. Water treatment facility.
5. Wells, pumping equipment and related facilities for the provision of water within the Sunriver
UUC.
6. Public buildings, public utility structures and yards, including railroad yards.
7. Administrative, office and storage facilities appurtenant to a use permitted outright.
8. Irrigation systems and irrigation ponds.
9. Facilities similar to those listed above which are mandated by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ).
10. Cable television facility, including but not limited to office and equipment buildings, satellite dish,
antennas, etc.
11. Wireless telecommunications facility.
12. Microwave and radio communication towers.
PAGE 21 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
B. Height Regulations. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or structurally altered
to exceed 45 feet in height.
C. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed:
1. Lot Area. No requirements.
2. Lot Width. No requirements.
3. Lot Depth. 100 feet.
4. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side Yard. None, except when a side lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required side yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
6. Rear Yard. None, except when a rear lot line is adjoining a lot in an RS or RM District, and then
the rear yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The required rear yard shall be increased by one-half
foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds 20 feet.
7. Lot Coverage. No requirements.
(Ord. 97-078 §2,1997)
18.108.180. Forest - F District.
A. Uses permitted outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to
applicable provisions of DCC 18.36, Forest Use-F1 Zone, and to applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan:
1. Forest operations or forest practices including, but not limited to, reforestation of forest land, road
construction and maintenance, harvesting of a forest tree species, application of chemicals and
disposal of slash.
2. Temporary on-site structures which are auxiliary to and used during the term of a particular forest
operation. As used here, temporary structures are those which are portable and/or not placed on a
permanent foundation, and which are removed at the conclusion of the forest operation requiring its
use.
3. Physical alterations to commercial forest land auxiliary to forest practices including, but not limited
to, those made for purposes of exploration, mining, commercial gravel extraction and processing,
landfills, dams, reservoirs, road construction or recreational facilities. Gravel extraction and
processing not covered by DCC 18.108.180 is governed by DCC 18.52.
4. Uses to conserve soil, air and water quality and to provide for wildlife and fisheries resources.
5. Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203.
6. Local distribution lines (e.g., electric, telephone, natural gas, etc.) and accessory equipment (e.g.,
electric distribution transformers, poles, meter cabinets, terminal boxes, pedestals), or equipment
which provides service hookups, including water service hookups.
7. Temporary portable facility for the primary processing of forest products. The facility shall not be
placed on a permanent foundation and shall be removed at the conclusion of the forest operation
requiring its use.
8. Exploration for mineral and aggregate resources as defined in ORS 517.
9. Towers and fire stations for forest fire protection.
10. Widening of roads within existing rights of way in conformance with the transportation element of
the comprehensive plan including public road and highway projects as described in ORS
215.283(1)(k) through (n).
11. Water intake facilities, canals and distribution lines for farm irrigation and ponds.
12. Uninhabitable structures accessory to fish and wildlife enhancement.
B. Conditional uses permitted. The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest
District, subject to applicable provisions of DCC 18.36, Forest Use-F1 Zone, and to applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan:
PAGE 22 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
1. Television, microwave and radio communication facilities and transmission towers.
2. Water intake facilities, related treatment facilities, pumping stations and distribution lines.
3. Reservoirs and water impoundments.
4. New electric transmission lines with right-of-way widths of up to 100 feet as specified in ORS
772.210. New distribution lines (e.g. electrical, gas, oil, geothermal) with rights of way 50 feet or
less in width.
5. Forest management research and experimentation facilities as defined by ORS 526.215 or where
accessory to forest operations.
6. Disposal site for solid waste, not including a land disposal site, for which the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality has granted a perniit or a similar approval, together with equipment,
facilities or buildings necessary for operation. Uses permitted under this category are limited to
commercial composting, subject to DCC 18.128.015 and 18.128.120.
(Ord. 2001-040 §1, 2001; Ord. 98-016 §2, 1998; Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
18.108.190. Flood Plain - FP Combining District.
A. Designated Areas. The Flood Plain Combining District includes all areas within the Sunriver UUC
designated as "Special Flood Hazard Areas" in the report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for
Deschutes County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas," dated September 28, 2007, with accompanying
flood insurance rate maps.
B. Conditional Uses. Uses permitted either outright or conditionally in the underlying district with which
the FP Combining District is combined shall be allowed as conditional uses in the FP Combining
District, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.108.190(C) and DCC 18.128 and other applicable sections
of this title.
C. Use Limits. All uses proposed within the FP Combining District shall be subject to DCC 18.96.060
through 18.96.085 and DCC 18.96.100, 18.96.120 through 18.96.140.
D. Height Regulations. The height regulations for the FP Combining District shall be those which are
established in the underlying district with which the FP Combining District is combined.
E. Lot Requirements. The lot dimension and yard requirements for the FP Combining District shall be
those which are established in the underlying district with which the FP Combining District is
combined.
(Ord. 2007-019 §2, 2007; Ord. 97-078 §2, 1997)
PAGE 23 OF 23 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
18.116.010. Authorization of Similar Uses.
18.116.020.
Clear Vision Areas.
18.116.030.
Off-Street Parking and Loading.
18.116.031.
Bicycle Parking.
18.116.035. Bicycle Commuter Facilities.
18.116.040. Accessory Uses.
18.116.050. Manufactured Homes.
18.116.070. Placement Standards for Manufactured Homes.
18.116.080. Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
18.116.090. A Manufactured Home as a Temporary Residence for Medical Condition.
18.116.095. Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
18.116.100. Building Projections.
18.116.200. Repealed.
18.116.120. Fences.
18.116.130. Hydroelectric Facilities.
18.116.140. Electrical Substations.
18.116.150. Endangered Species.
18.116.160. Rimrock Setbacks Outside of LM Combining Zone.
18.116.170. Solar Height Restrictions.
18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access.
18.116.190. Solar Access Permit.
18.116.200. Repealed.
18.116.210. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities.
18.116.215. Family Childcare Provider.
18.116.220. Conservation Easements on Property Adjacent to Rivers and Streams-Prohibitions.
18.116.230. Standards for Class I and II Road Projects.
18.116.240. Protection of Historic Sites.
18.116.250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
18.116.260. Rock Crushing Outside the SM Zone.
18.116.270. Conducting Filming Activities in All Zones.
18.116.280. Home Occupations.
18.116.010. Authorization of Similar Uses.
A. The purpose of DCC 18.116.010 is to, consistent with provisions of state law, provide for land uses not
specifically listed in any zone, but which are similar in character, scale, impact and performance to a
permitted or conditional use specified in a particular zone.
B. Review Criteria. A similar use may be authorized by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided
that the applicant establishes that the proposed use meets the following criteria:
1. The use is not listed specifically in any zone;
2. The use is similar in character, scale, impact and performance to one or more of the permitted or
conditional uses listed for the zone in which it is proposed; and
3. The use is consistent with any applicable requirements of state law with respect to what uses may
be allowed in the particular zone in question.
PAGE I OF 28 - EXHJB1T "C" TO ORDLNATNCE 2008_015 (4!9/200-8)
i
Any similar use authorized by the Planning Directo or Hearings Body shall conform to the
applicable standards and requirements of the zone in which it is located, including any requirements
for conditional use review set forth in DCC 18.128.
C. Procedure:
1. A property owner may initiate a request for authorization of a similar use by filing an application
with the Planning Division on forms prescribed by the division.
2. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall consider request for authorization of a similar use
under the requirements of Title 22, the Deschutes County Uniform Development Procedures
Ordinance.
(Ord. 91-038 §3, 1991)
18.116.020. Clear Vision Areas.
A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of
two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure,
or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height, measured from the
top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees
exceeding this height may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a
height of eight feet above the grade.
B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at the intersection of two
streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the
street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B)(1) and (2).
Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the
extension of the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line connecting
the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements shall establish
clear vision areas within the County:
1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at
intersections including an alley, 10 feet.
2. In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be in relationship to street and road right of way
widths as follows:
Right of way Width
Clear vision
80 feet or more
20 feet
60 feet
30 feet
50 feet and less
40 feet
(Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.116.030. Off-street Parking and Loading.
A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show
how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be
available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for
which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the
amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18.
B. Off-Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of
increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which
will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall
provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows:
1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or
more shall provide truck loading or unloading berths subjiect to the following table:
PAGE 2 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
Sq. Ft. of Floor Area
No. of Berths Required
Less than 5,000
0
5,000-30,000
1
30,000-100,000
2
100,000 and Over
3
2. Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public
buildings, recreation or entertainment facilities and any similar use which has a gross floor area of
30,000 square feet or more shall provide off-street truck loading or unloading berths subject to the
following table:
S q. Ft. of Floor Area
No. of Berths Required
Less than 30,000
0
30,000-100,000
1
100,000 and Over
2
3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a height clearance of 14
feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading exceed these dimensions, the required length of
these berths shall be increased.
4. If loading space has been provided in connection with an existing use or is added to an existing use,
the loading space shall not be eliminated if elimination would result in less space than is required to
adequately handle the needs of the particular use.
5. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for
loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of
parking needs.
C. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC
18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the
time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective
date of DCC Title 18 is changed.
D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows:
1. Residential.
Use
Requirements
One, two and three
2 spaces per dwelling
family dwellings
unit
Multi-family dwelling
containing four or more
dwelling units:
Studio or efficiency
0.75 space per unit
unit
1 bedroom
1.00 space per unit
2 bedroom
1.50 space per unit
3 bedroom
2.25 space per unit
4 bedroom
2.50 space per unit
Apartment/hotel,
0.50 space guest
rooming or boarding
parking per dwelling
house
unit
Quad or quint dwelling
4.50 spaces per quad
and 5.50 spaces per
quint
PAGE 3 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
2. Commercial Residential.
Use
Requirements
Hotel
1 space per guest room
plus 1 space per 2
employees.
Motel
1 space per guest room
or suite plus 1
additional space for the
owner-manager
Club or lodge
Spaces to meet the
combined requirements
of the uses being
conducted such as
hotel, restaurant,
auditorium, etc.
Fraternity, sorority or
1 space for each 6
dormitory
student beds
3. Institutions.
Use
Requirements
Welfare or correctional
1 space per 3 beds for
institution
patients or inmates
Convalescent Hospital,
1 space per 2 beds for
nursing hospital,
patients or residents
sanitarium, rest home,
home for the aged
Hospital
1.50 spaces per bed
4. Places Of Public Assembly.
Use
Requirements
Church
1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet
of bench length in the main
auditorium or 1 space for
each 50 sq. ft. of floor area
used for assembly
Library, reading
1 space per 400 sq. ft. of
room, museum, art
floor area plus 1 space per
gallery
2 employees
Preschool, nursery
2 spaces per teacher
or kindergarten
Elementary or
1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet
junior high schools
of bench length in
auditorium or assembly
room, whichever is greater,
plus 1 space per employee.
High schools
1 space for each 6 students
or 1 space per 4 seats or 8
feet of bench length in the
main auditorium,
whichever is greater, plus 1
space per employee
PAGE 4 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
College or
1 space per 3 seats in
commercial school
classrooms
for adults
Other auditorium
1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet
or meeting room
of bench length. If no fixed
seats or benches, 1 space
per 60 s q. ft. of floors ace.
5. Commercial Amusements.
Use
Requirements
Stadium, arena or
1 space per 4 seats or 8
theater
feet of bench length
Bowling alley
6 spaces per lane, plus
1 space per 2
employees
Dance hall or skating
1 space per 100 sq. ft.
rink
of floor area, plus 1
space per 2 employees.
6. Commercial.
Use
Requirements
Grocery stores of 1,500
1 space per 300 sq. ft.
sq. ft. or less of gross
of gross floor areas
floor area, and retail
stores, except those
selling bulky
merchandise
Supermarkets, grocery
1 space per 200 sq. ft.
stores
of gross floor area
Service or repair shops,
1 space per 600 sq. ft.
retail stores and outlets
of gross floor area
selling furniture,
automobiles or other
bulky merchandise
where the operator can
show the bulky
merchandise occupies
the major area of the
building
Bank or office, except
1 space per 300 sq. ft.
medical or dental
of gross floor area
Medical and dental
1 space per 150 sq. ft.
office or clinic
of gross floor area
Eating or drinking
1 space per 100 sq. ft.
establishments
of gross floor area.
Mortuaries
1 space per 4 seats or 8
ft. of bench length in
chapels
PAGE 5 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (14/9/2008
7. Industrial.
Use
Requirements
Manufacturing
1 space per employee
establishment
on the largest working
shift
Storage warehouse,
1 space per 2,000 sq. ft.
wholesale
of floor area
establishment, rail or
trucking freight
terminal
8. Town Center District (Sunriver UUC).
Use
Requirements
Multi-family
Residential Subject to
Paragraph (E)(1):
1 bedroom
1.00 space per unit
2 bedrooms
1.50 space er unit
3 bedrooms
2.00 spaces per unit
4 bedrooms
2.00 spaces per unit
Town Center Mixed
Use Structure:
Studio or Efficiency
1.00 space per unit
1 bedroom
1.00 space per unit
2 bedrooms
1.00 space per unit
3 bedrooms
1.50 spaces er unit
4 bedrooms
2.00 spaces per unit
Hotel
1.0 space per unit +
1 space per 2 full-time
employees
Lock Off Areas
.5 parking space, in
addition to base
parkin for unit
Live/Work Units
.5 parking space, in
addition to base
parking for dwelling
unit
9.8. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the
Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining
requirements for said other uses.
E. General Provisions. Off-Street Parking.
1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or
parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the
several uses computed separately.
2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or
parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that
it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations
PAGE 6 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
and parking needs do not evenap conflict at any point of time. Further, the total parkin required
for the two or more land uses may be reduced to reflect internal trips between/among multiple uses
_If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking
space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish
the joint use.
3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same
lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another
parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a
straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone, except when provided in
conjunction with connecting shuttle service as identified in DCC 18 116 030(E)(7). Such parking
shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The
burden of proving the existence of such off-premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant.
4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable
passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used
for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business
or used in conducting the business or use.
5. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi-family dwellings or
commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver
UUC Business Park (BP) District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the
LaPine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within a required side or rear
yard.
6. On-Street Parking Credit. Notwithstanding DCC 18.116.030(G)(2), within commercial zones in the
La Pine Planning Area and the Terrebonne and Tumalo unincorporated communities, the amount of
required off-street parking can be reduced by one off-street parking space for every allowed on-
street parking space adjacent to a property up to 30% of the required off-street parking. On-street
parking shall follow the established configurations in the parking design standards under DCC
18.116.030 Table 1. To be considered for the parking credit, the proposed parking surface, along
the street frontage under review, must have a defined curb line and improved as required under
DCC 17.48, with existing pavement, or an engineered gravel surface. For purposes of establishing
credit, the following constitutes an on-street parking space:
a. Parallel parking (0 degree), each 20 feet of uninterrupted curb;
b. Diagonal parking (60 degree), each with 11 feet of curb;
c. Perpendicular parking (90 degree), each with 10 feet of curb;
d. Curb space must be connected to the lot that contains the use;
e. Parking spaces that would not obstruct a required clear vision area, nor any other parking that
violates any law or street standard; and
f. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use may not be used exclusively by that use, but
shall be available for general public use at all times. No signs or actions limiting general public
use of on-street spaces is permitted.
7. Transportation Demand Management. Motor vehicle parkin requirements may be reduced based on
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management TDM) plan subject to the approval of
the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon a finding that the proposed TDM plan will reduce the
need for motor vehicle parking to a level of parking that is lower than the amount of parking
required by DCC 18.116.030 and a finding that the applicant has demonstrated and assured the
County that the TDM measures will remain in place A TDM plan may include but is not limited
to, the following elements:
a. Bicycle Parking: Motor vehicle parking requirements may be reduced in exchange for bicvcle
parking, as described in 18.16.031.
b. Shuttle Service: Motor vehicle parkin requirements may be reduced by up to ten percent
where frequent shuttle or transit service connects on-site residential/ employment uses to
PAGE 7 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
transportation hubs (including airports) as well as nearby commercial centers and recreational
areas.
c Satellite Parking: Parking may be provided at a distance greater than 500 feet when in
conjunction with a coordinated shuttle service.
F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off-Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter
used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as
follows:
1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for more than five vehicles
shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless
effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures..
2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project
light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone.
3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back
vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley.
4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained
for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be
made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that:
a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff
problems; or
b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing
will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties;
or
c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated
community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any
adverse impacts on surrounding properties.
5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering.
6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of
traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and
vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will
accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly and permanently
marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service
drives to drive in establishments shall be designed' to avoid backing movements or other
maneuvering within a street other than an alley.
7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the
driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points
30 feet from their intersection.
8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper
rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right
of way.
G. Off-Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards
for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table:
(SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116)
1. For one row of stalls use "C" + "D" as minimum bay width.
2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D," but all parking stalls must be on
private property, off the public right of way.
3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-325 square feet per vehicle for stall, aisle and access
areas.
PAGE 8 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
4. For large parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be designed for compact cars
provided that the compact stalls do not exceed 30 percent of the total required stalls. A compact
stall shall be eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width.
5. For. Multi-family Residential uses allowed by DCC 18 108 055(A)(6) minimum parkin
requirements may be satisfied through tandem parking whereby two vehicles are accommodated
end-to-end provided the tandem parking spaces are used to meet the parking requirements for a
single dwelling unit only.
(Ord. 2008-015 §3, 2008, Ord. 2004-013 §12, 2004; Ord. 2003-005 §2, 2003; Ord. 2002-015 §2, 2002, Ord.
2001-044 §4, 2001; Ord. 97-078 §6, 1997; Ord. 96-003 §7, 1996; Ord. 93-063 §2, 1993; Ord. 93-043 §19,
1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-017 §1, 1990)
18.116.031. Bicycle Parking.
New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan
review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance
93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031.
A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required.
1. General Minimum Standard. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as
specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking
spaces. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two
sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of
the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered.
2. Special Minimum Standards.
a. Multi-Family Residences. Every residential use of four or more dwelling units shall provide at
least one bicycle parking space for each unit. In those instances in which the residential
complex has no garage, required spaces shall be sheltered.
b. Parking Lots. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a
minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 10 motor vehicle parking spaces.
c. Schools. Secondary schools, both public and private, shall provide one bicycle parking space
for every 10 students, all of which shall be sheltered.
d. Colleges. One-half of the bicycle parking spaces at colleges, universities and trade schools
shall be sheltered facilities.
3. Trade Off with Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces.
a. One motor vehicle parking space may be deleted from the required number of spaces in
exchange for providing required bicycle parking. Any deleted motor vehicle space shall be
replaced with at least five bicycle spaces. If such additional parking is to be located in the area
of the deleted automobile parking space, it must meet all other bicycle parking standards.
b. The Hearings Body or Planning Director may authorize additional bicycle parking in exchange
for required motor vehicle parking in areas of demonstrated, anticipated, or desired high bicycle
use.
4. Calculating number of bicycle spaces.
a. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space.
b. For facilities with multiple uses (such as a commercial center) bicycle-parking requirements
shall be calculated by using the total number of motor vehicle spaces required for the entire
development.
B. Bicycle Parking Design.
1. General Description.
a. Sheltered Parking. Sheltered parking may be provided within a bicycle storage room, bicycle
locker, or racks inside a building; in bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure;
PAGE 9 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
underneath an awning, eave, or other overhang; or by other facility as determined by the
Hearings Body or Planning Director that protects the bicycle from direct exposure to the
elements.
b. Unsheltered parking may be provided by bicycle racks.
2. Location.
a. Required bicycle parking that is located outdoors shall be located on-site within 50 feet of main
entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space.
Bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience to bicyclist. Such
bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right of way and to the main entrance
of the principal use.
b. Bicycle parking facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking and drive areas by a
barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycle.
c. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible and obvious from the public right(s) of
way, entry and directional signs shall be provided to direct bicyclists for the public right of way
to the bicycle parking facility. Directions to sheltered facilities inside a structure may be signed,
or supplied by the employer, as appropriate.
3. Dimensional Standards.
a. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least two by six feet with a vertical clearance of seven
feet.
b. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between
each row of bicycle parking.
c. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle.
4. Surface. The surface of an outdoor parking facility shall be surfaced in the same manner as the
motor vehicle parking area or with a minimum of one-inch thickness of aggregate material. This
surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition.
5. Security.
a. Bicycle parking facilities shall offer security in the form of either a lockable enclosure in which
the bicycle can be stored or a stationary object (i.e., a "rack") upon which the bicycle can be
locked. Structures that require a user-supplied lock shall accommodate both cables and U-
shaped locks and shall permit the frame and both wheels to be secured (removing the front
wheel may be necessary). All bicycle racks, lockers, or other facilities shall be permanently
anchored to the surface of the ground or to a structure.
b. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly
illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks or motor vehicle parking.
6. Other means that provide the above level of bicycle parking may be approved by the Hearings Body
or the Planning Director.
(Ord. 93-005 §4, 1993)
18.116.035. Bicycle Commuter Facilities.
A. Each commercial or public building having a work force of at least 25 people shall have bicycle
commuter facilities consisting of shower(s) and changing rooms(s). For facilities with more than one
building (such as a college), bicycle commuter facilities may be located in a central location.
B. This provision shall apply to (1) new development requiring off-street parking and (2) any construction,
renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title IS for which
planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005.
(Ord. 93-005 §5, 1993)
PAGE 10 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.116.040. Accessory Uses.
An accessory use shall comply with all requirements for a principal use, except as DCC Title 18 specifically
allows to the contrary, and shall comply with the following limitations:
A. The primary use of the property must be established or applied for prior to issuance of any building or
land use permits for an accessory structures.
1. Exception:
a. Building permit for a ramada or carport may be issued without establishment or application of
primary use if all other criteria for issuance are met.
b. Land use, building or environmental health permits or extensions of such permits sought to
correct existing code violations for the subject property shall be issued if all other criteria for
issuance are met.
c. A building permit for an accessory structure or structures not exceeding a combined total of
2,000 square feet in size, with no windows, with only one floor, an operable garage door, no
plumbing or stack vents through the roof or walls and not requiring plumbing or mechanical
permits.
B. A side yard or rear yard may be reduced to five feet for an accessory structure erected more than 65 feet
from a front lot line, provided the structure is detached from other buildings by five feet or more and
does not exceed a height of one story nor an area of 450 square feet.
C. Boats and trailers, travel trailers, pickup campers or coaches, motorized dwellings and similar
recreational equipment may be stored on a lot but not used as an accessory use in any zone provided
that:
1. In a residential zone, parking or storage in a front yard or in a side yard adjoining a street other than
an alley shall be permitted only on a driveway.
2. Parking or storage shall be at least three feet from an interior side lot line.
D. A manufactured home may be stored on an individual lot subject to obtaining a zoning approval from
the Planning Division and subject to the following:
1. Storage period shall not exceed one year.
2. No utilities other than electric may be connected.
3. The mobile home shall not be inhabited.
4. The subject lot is not located in a CH, Conventional Housing Combining Zone.
(Ord. 96-057 §1, 1996; Ord. 95-077 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991)
18.116.050. Manufactured Homes.
Manufactured Home Classes. For purposes of these regulations, manufactured homes are divided into the
following types:
A. A Class A manufactured home shall:
1. Have more than 1,000 square feet of occupied space in a double section or larger multi-section unit;
2. Be placed on a foundation or support system, as specified by the manufacturer. Skirting shall be
required;
3. Have wheels, axles and hitch mechanisms removed;
4. Have utilities connected subject to the requirements of the Building Codes Agency and
manufacturer's specifications;
5. Bear an insignia of compliance with the Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety
Standards Code as of June 15, 1976;
6. Have roofing materials of a type customarily used on site constructed residences, including wood
shakes or shingles, asphalt or fiberglass shingles, corrugated mat finish colored metal and tile
materials, but not including high gloss corrugated aluminum or fiberglass panels. The roof pitch
shall be a minimum of two over 12; and
PAGE 11 OF 28 - EXHIBIT TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2Q0R)
7. Have siding materials of a type customarily used on site~constructed residences such as clapboard,
horizontal vinyl or aluminum lap-siding, cedar or other wood siding, brick or stone, and not
including high gloss finished material, corrugated metal or fiberglass, or metal or plastic panels.
B. A Class B manufactured home shall:
1. Have at least 750 square feet of occupied space in a single, double, expand or multi-section unit;
2. Be placed on a foundation, as specified by the manufacturer. Skirting shall be required;
3. Have wheels, axles and hitch mechanisms removed;
4. Have utilities connected subject to the requirements of the Building Codes Agency and
manufacturer's specifications;
5. Bear an insignia of compliance with the Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety
Standards Code as of June 15, 1976;
6. Have roofing materials of a type customarily used on site constructed residences, including wood
shakes or shingles, asphalt or fiberglass shingles, corrugated matte finish colored metal and tile
materials, but not including high gloss corrugated aluminum or fiberglass panels. The roof pitch
shall be a minimum of two over 12; and
7. Have siding materials of a type customarily used on site constructed residences such as clapboard,
horizontal vinyl or aluminum lap siding, cedar or other wood siding, brick or stone, and not
including high gloss finished material, corrugated metal or fiberglass, or metal or plastic panels.
C. A Class C manufactured home shall:
1. Have at least 576 square feet of occupied space, excluding tipouts and hitches;
2. Be placed on a foundation or support system, as specified by the manufacturer. Skirting shall be
required;
3. Bear an insignia of compliance with the Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety
Standards Code as of June 15, 1976, or bear the Oregon Department of Commerce "Insignia of
Compliance"; and
4. Have utilities connected subject to the requirements of the Building Codes Agency and
manufacturer's specifications.
D. A Class D manufactured home shall:
1. Have more than 320 square feet of occupied space;
2. Be placed on a foundation or support system, as specified by the manufacturer. Skirting shall be
required; and
3. Have utilities connected subject to requirements of the Building Codes Agency and manufacturer's
specifications.
(Ord. 2004-013 §12, 2004; Ord. 2001-013 §1, 2001; Ord. 2000-033 §7, 2000; Ord. 93-043 §§19B-E, 1993;
Ord. 91-038 §4, 1991; Ord. 91-017 §§1-3 and 4, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §§38-40 and 41, 1991; Ord. 89-004 §§3
and 5, 1989; Ord. 81-042 § 1-3 and 4, 1981)
18.116.070. Placement Standards for Manufactured Homes.
A. As defined in DCC 18.116.050, Class A and B manufactured homes shall be permitted as follows,
subject to the requirements of the underlying zone:
1. In the following zones, except where there is a Conventional Housing Overlay Zone (CH): Any
EFU zone, MUA-10, F-1, F-2, RR-10, any area zoned as an unincorporated community (as that
term is defined herein), RSR-M, RSR-5, and FP as the primary dwelling, and R-I and SM as a
caretaker's residence.
2. In manufactured home parks and subdivisions.
3. As permitted in DCC 18.116.080 and 18.116.090.
4. Class A and B manufactured homes are not permitted in any historic district or on any historic site.
B. Class C manufactured homes shall be permitted as follows:
1. Except as otherwise allowed in DCC 18.116.070, on parcels 10 acres in size or larger.
PAGE 12 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
2. As a secondary accessory farm dwelling.
3. In manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions.
4. As permitted in DCC 18.116.080 and 18.116.090.
5. As a replacement to an existing non-conforming manufactured home destroyed by fire or other
natural act, or as an upgrade to an existing manufactured home.
6. In the following subdivisions: Rockview 11, Tetherow Crossing, Chaparral Estates, Crystal Acres,
Hidden Valley Mobile Estates, Johnson Acres, Seven Peaks, Sun Mountain Ranches, Deschutes
River Homesites Rimrock Addition, Happy Acres, Rancho El Sereno, Whispering Pines, Bend
Cascade View Estates, Raintree, Holmes Acres, La Pine Meadows North, Pine Crest Ranchettes,
Dora's Acres, Pierce Tracts, Roan Park, South Forty, Tomes, Crooked River Ranch, Dale Acres,
Replat/Hillman, Lake Park Estates, Mary K. Falls Estates.
7. Class C manufactured homes are not permitted in any historic district or on any historic site.
C. An exception may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to allow a Class C
manufactured home to be placed in a subdivision which is not listed in DCC 18.116.070(B)(6), where
all of the following conditions exist:
1. The manufactured home is specifically designed or has been substantially modified for wheelchair
or disabled access (disabled accessible manufactured home).
2. There are Class C manufactured homes in the subdivision located within one-quarter mile of the lot
upon which the manufactured home will be placed.
3. The disabled accessible manufactured home and lot upon which the manufactured home is to be
placed were purchased by the applicant prior to February 22, 1989.
D. Class D manufactured homes shall be permitted as follows:
1. In manufactured home parks and subdivisions.
2. As permitted in DCC 18.116.080 and 18.116.090.
3. Class D manufactured homes are not permitted in any historic district or on any historic site.
(Ord. 2000-033 §8, 2000; Ord. 96-003 §8, 1996; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §§42 and 43, 1991;
Ord. 89-016 §1, 1989; Ord. 89-014 §1, 1989; Ord. 89-004 §§3 and 5, 1989; Ord. 81-042 §5, 1981)
18.116.080. Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
A manufactured home of any class or a recreational vehicle may be authorized as a temporary residence on
an individual lot and shall comply with the following additional provisions:
A. The manufactured home or recreational vehicle shall be placed upon a lot for which a building permit
for a housing unit has been obtained.
B. The manufactured home or recreational vehicle shall be occupied only during a period in which
satisfactory progress is being made toward the completion of the housing unit on the same site.
C. Electric, water and sewer utility connections shall be made to the manufactured home or recreational
vehicle.
D. The manufactured home shall be removed from the lot not later than 18 months following the date on
which the building permit for the housing unit is issued or not later than two months following the date
of final building inspection of the housing unit, whichever occurs first. The habitation of the
recreational vehicle must cease, and its connection to all utilities other than electric must be
discontinued not later than 18 months following the date on which the building permit for the housing
unit is issued or not later than two months following the completion of the housing unit, whichever
occurs first.
E. All evidence that the manufactured home has been on the lot shall be removed within the 30 days
following the removal of the manufactured home.
(Ord. 93-043 §19F, 1993; Ord. 91-005 §44, 1991; Ord. 89-004 §4, 1989)
PAGE 13 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.116.090. A Manufactured Home as a Temporary Residence for Medical Condition.
A. A temporary use permit for a manufactured home of any class in a residential area may be granted when
a medical condition exists which requires the temporary location of a manufactured home on the
property in order to provide necessary care for a member of the principal occupant's family. Such
medical condition must be verified by a doctor's written statement, which shall accompany the permit
application.
B. The temporary use permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with the terms of DCC
18.116.090.
C. The manufactured home shall be removed not later than 90 days following the date the medical
condition requiring the temporary use permit ceases to exist.
(Ord. 91-005 §45,1991; Ord. 89-004 §5, 1989)
18.116.095. Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
A. A single recreational vehicle, as defined in DCC Title 1$, may be located on a lot or parcel not
containing a dwelling and used as a temporary dwelling unit:
1. For a period totaling not more than 30 days in any consecutive 60-day period without obtaining a
land use permit from the Deschutes County Planning Division; or
2. For a total period not to exceed six months in a calendar year by obtaining a temporary use permit
under the terms of DCC 18.116.095 from the Deschutes County Planning Division. A temporary
use permit may be renewed annually for use of a recreational vehicle under the terms of DCC
18.116.095 on the same lot or parcel.
B. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Deschutes County Building Safety Division before
connecting a recreational vehicle to sewer, water and/or electric utility services.
C. A permit shall be obtained from the Deschutes County Environmental Health Division before disposing
any wastewater or sewage on-site.
D. A recreational vehicle used as a temporary dwelling unit shall meet the same setbacks required of a
permanent dwelling on the subject lot.
E. A recreational vehicle shall be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking
system, shall be attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and
shall have no permanently attached additions.
(Ord. 2007-019 §4, 2007; Ord. 98-062 §1, 1998; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 91-038 §3, 1991)
18.116.100. Building Projections.
Architectural features such as cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters, chimneys and flues shall not
project more than three feet into a required yard, provided that the projection is not closer than three feet to
a property line.
(Ord. 91-038 §4, 1991)
18.116.120. Fences.
A. Fences which form a solid barrier or are sight obstructive shall not exceed three and one-half feet in
height when located in a required front yard or in a clear vision area.
B. Fences in Wildlife Area Combining Zones shall be designed in conformance with the requirements of
DCC 18.88.
C. All fences shall comply with the requirements of the State of Oregon Building Code.
(Ord. 92-042 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991)
PAGE 14 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.116.130. Hydroelectric Facilities.
A. No new hydroelectric facilities shall be constructed, and no existing hydroelectric facilities shall be
enlarged or expanded in size of area or generating capacity, on the following rivers and streams within
Deschutes County:
1. Deschutes River, from its headwaters to River Mile 227, above, but not including Wickiup Dam,
and from Wickiup Dam to River Mile 171 below Lava Island Falls;
2. Crooked River;
3. Fall River;
4. Little Deschutes River;
5. Spring River;
6. Paulina Creek;
7. Whychus Creek; and
8. Tumalo Creek..
B. Hydroelectric facilities are allowed as a conditional use on the Deschutes River at Wickiup Dam, and
from River Mile 171 below Lava Island Falls downstream to the northern Deschutes County line. Such
conditional use shall be governed by the conditions set forth in DCC 18.128.260.
(Ord. 86-018 §17, 1986)
18.116.140. Electrical Substations.
Electrical substations, whether as an outright or conditional use, shall submit a site plan complying with the
provisions of DCC Title 18 to the Planning Department.
(Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991)
18.116.150. Endangered Species.
Developments which occur in areas which may disturb species (plant or animal) listed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Fish and Wildlife as endangered shall prepare an
acceptable protection plan for use during and after construction (e.g., a nest protection plan for
developments in the vicinity of Bald Eagle nesting sites).
(Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.116.160. Rimrock Setbacks Outside of LM Combining Zone.
All structures, including decks, within 50 feet from the edge of a rimrock, as defined in DCC 18.04.030,
shall be subject to site review if visible from the river or stream. Prior to approval of any structure within 50
feet of a rimrock, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make the following findings:
A. All structures, including decks, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock.
B. The height of the structure shall not exceed the setback from the edge of the rimrock.
C. Existing trees and shrubs which reduce the visibility of the proposed structure shall be retained.
D. Where multiple structures are proposed on a parcel of land the structures shall be grouped or clustered
so as to maintain a general appearance of open landscape for the effected area. This shall require a
maintenance of at least 65 percent open space along all rimrocks.
(Ord. 92-034 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 88-004 §1, 1988; Ord. 86-053 §21, 1986; Ord. 85-016
§2, 1985; Ord. 82-013 §2, 1982; Ord. 81-015 §1, 1981)
18.116.170. Solar Height Restrictions.
No building, structure or nonexempt vegetation may exceed the solar height restriction established on a
burdened property by the solar access of a benefited property.
(Ord. 83-037 §25, 1983)
PAGE 1 G OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDli" :ANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access.
A. Purpose. The purpose of DCC 18.116.180 is to provide as much solar access as practical during the
winter solar heating hours to existing or potential buildings by requiring all new structures, excepting
lots less than 10,000 square feet in size or under 80-feet average width, as defined by DCC 17.08.030
"lot width," and located in the Neighborhood Planning Area of the Urban Unincorporated Community -
La Pine, to be constructed as far south on their lots as is necessary and feasible.
B. Standards. Every new structure or addition to an existing structure, excepting lots less than 10,000
square feet in size or under 80-feet average width, as defined by DCC 17.08.030 "lot width," and
located in the Neighborhood Planning Area of the Urban Unincorporated Community - La Pine, shall
meet the following standards for a solar setback from the north lot line, except as provided in
DCC 18.116.180(B)(3):
1. South Wall Protection Standard. The south wall protection standard is based on an eight-foot solar
fence on the subject property's north lot line which allows solar radiation on a neighboring
building's south wall above two feet from the ground, assuming a 20-foot setback from the common
property line to the neighboring building. Solar setbacks for the south wall protection standards can
be calculated with the diagram in Appendix A-1 or estimated with the table in Appendix A-2. Final
determination of solar setback distance is made by entering the following variables into the
Deschutes County Shadow Length computer program:
a. Pole height;
b. The eight-foot fence height;
c. The scale of the plot plan submitted in feet per inch; and
d. Degrees of slope of the land from east to west and from north to south.
e. If a setback meeting this requirement is not feasible due to physical constraints of the lot,
including, but not limited to, rock outcroppings, septic systems, existing legal restrictions or lot
dimensions, as determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body, then the structure or
addition must be located as far to the south on the lot as feasible and must meet the standard set
forth in DCC 18.116.180(B)(2).
2. South Roof Protection Standard. The south roof protection standard is based on a 14 foot solar
fence on the subject property's north lot line which allows for solar radiation on a neighboring
building above eight feet from ground level and assuming a 20 foot setback from the common
boundary line to the neighboring building. Solar setbacks for this standard can be calculated using
the diagram in Appendix B-1 or estimated using the table in Appendix B-2. Final determination of
the setback will be made using the Shadow Length computer program by specifying a 14-foot solar
fence and additional site specific information as listed in bCC 18.116.180(B)(1).
3. Exceptions. The south roof protection standard shall not apply only if the applicant establishes:
a. That the structure cannot be located on the lot without violating the requirements contained in
Appendix B; and
b. That the structure is built with its highest point as far to the south as feasible; and
i. That the structure is a single family residence with a highest point less than or equal to 16
feet high; or, if not a single family residence;
ii. That it is a permitted or conditional use for the lot.
4. Exemptions.
a. The governing body may exempt from the provision of DCC 18.116.180 any area where it is
determined that solar uses are not feasible because the area is already substantially shaded due
to heavy vegetation, steep north facing slopes, and any area or zone in which taller buildings are
planned.
b. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall exempt a structure from the provisions of DCC
18.116.180 if the structure will shade only a protected area in which solar uses are not feasible
PAGE 16 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANC F_. 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
because the protected area is already substantially shaded at the time a request for exemption is
made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body.
c. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall exempt a structure from the provisions of DCC
18.116.180 if the structure is in conformance with a solar height restriction as provided in DCC
Title 17, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance, as amended.
(Ord. 2006-035 §2, 2006; Ord. 2004-013 §12, 2004; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord.
83-037 §3, 1983)
18.116.190. Solar Access Permit.
A. Purpose. The purpose of DCC 18.116.190 is to provide solar access to productive solar collectors by
establishing limitations, on a case by case basis, for the growth of vegetation on certain lots in the
vicinity of a productive solar collector.
B. Application for Solar Access Permit.
1. Any owner may submit an application for a solar access permit to provide solar access for a
productive solar collector located on the owner's real property.
2. The application for a solar access permit shall be on forms prescribed by the County and shall
contain, at a minimum:
a. A legal description of the applicant's lot, including a statement that the applicant is the owner of
the lot, and a description of the nature of the applicant's interest in the lot;
b. Documentation to show that the solar collector is or will be a productive solar collector within
one year of application;
c. Descriptive drawings of the solar collector showing its dimensions and precise location;
d. A sun chart and a statement of the solar heating hours for which solar access is sought;
e. A statement that there is no reasonable alternative location for the solar collector that would
result in a lesser burden on a neighboring lot;
f. A statement that trimming the vegetation on the applicant's lot will not permit an alternative
location that would lessen the burden on a neighboring lot;
g. A list of the lots that are within 150 feet to the south, southeast, or southwest of the solar
collector, including streets, alleys and other unbuildable areas; a legal description for each such
lot; the owner of record and his address; the exempt vegetation located on the lot; and any
existing nonexempt vegetation likely to encroach on the protected area;
h. A statement that none of the lots impacted is located on a north-facing slope with a grade that
exceeds, on average, 15 percent; and
i. A plot plan showing the location of and delineating all exempt and nonexempt vegetation as
shown on the sunchart photograph as well as any nonexempt vegetation not shown on the
sunchart which may encroach on the protected area in the future. The plot plan shall also
include:
i. The exact site of the solar collector, its height and its orientation.
ii. Scale.
iii. An indication of true north.
iv. A survey of the lot.
3. The solar access permit application shall be approved i£
a. The solar collector is or will be a productive solar collector;
b. The protected area to be created by the solar access permit is reasonably located. A solar
access permit shall be denied under DCC 18.116.190(B)(3)(b) if the applicant could trim his
own vegetation to permit an alternative location that would be less burdensome upon a
burdened neighboring lot. A solar access permit shall also be denied under DCC
18.116.190(B)(3)(b) if there is an alternate location that would impose a lesser burden on a
neighboring lot or lots;
PAGE 17 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
c. The applicant requests solar heating hours no greater than two hours before and after the solar
zenith from September 22 to March 21, and three hours before and after the solar zenith from
March 22 to September 21;
d. The solar access provided by the permit does not burden any lot with a north facing slope with
a grade that exceeds, on average, 15 percent; or which is more than 150 feet from the solar
collector; and
e. The application is accurate and complete.
C. Solar Access Permit Issuance and Recordation.
1. Upon the approval of an application, the County shall issue and acknowledge a solar access permit
creating the solar access requested in the application.
2. Upon receiving such a permit, the County Clerk shall:
a. Record the solar access pemut in the chain of title of the applicant's lot and of each neighboring
lot identified in the application; and
b. Keep a copy of the approved application on file in County records.
3. The form of the solar access permit shall be as prescribed by the County and shall contain, at a
minimum:
a. A legal description of the applicant's lot and each neighboring lot to be burdened by the solar
access created by the solar access permit; and
b. A complete description of the solar access restrictions applicable to each neighboring lot,
including the solar heating hours during which solar access is provided, and a sun chart
showing the plotted skyline, including vegetation and structures, and a scaled drawing showing
the size and location of the protected area and its orientation with respect to true south; and
c. A reference to where the approved application may be obtained.
D. Obligation Created by Solar Access Permit. The owner of any lot burdened by a solar access permit
shall trim any vegetation not exempted on the burdened lot that shades the protected area created by the
solar access permit, provided that there is no vegetation on the lot benefited by the solar access permit
that also shades the protected area. The cost of such trimming shall be borne by the owner of the
benefited lot if the vegetation existed at the time of permit application as shown on the plot plan; and for
all other vegetation, by the owner of the burdened lot. Before any trimming is required, the collector
owner must certify that the collector is still productive.
E. Termination of Solar Access Permit.
1. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall terminate the solar access permit with respect to all
or part of the neighboring lots burdened by the solar- access permit if a petition for termination is
submitted by the applicant or the applicant's successor in interest, or the collector is not productive
for 12 consecutive months.
2. The County Clerk shall record the termination of the solar access permit in the chain of title of each
lot affected by the termination.
(Ord. 93-043 §19G, 1993; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 83-037 §3, 1983)
18.116.200. (Repealed by Ord. 98-062, 1998)
18.116.210. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities.
A. Residential homes and residential facilities shall be permitted in the same manner that single-family
dwellings are permitted under DCC Title 18. For the purposes of DCC Title 18, the term "dwelling" or
"single-family dwellings" shall be synonymous with the terms "residential home" or "residential
facility."
B. In any application for a residential home or residential facility, the applicant shall not be required to
supply any information concerning the existence of or the nature or severity of any handicap (as that
term is defined under the Fair Housing Act) of prospective residents.
PAGE 18 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
(Ord. 91-038 §3, 1991)
18.116.215. Family Childcare Provider.
A. A family childcare provider's home shall be considered a residential use of property, permitted in all
areas zoned for residential and commercial purposes, including areas zoned for single-family dwellings.
B. The family childcare provider's home is subject to the same restrictions imposed on any residential
dwelling in the same residential or commercial zone.
(Ord. 97-003 §3, 1997)
18.116.220. Conservation Easements on Property Adjacent to Rivers and Streams-Prohibitions.
A. As a condition of approval of all land use actions involving property adjacent to the Deschutes River,
Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Paulina Creek, Whychus Creek and
Tumalo Creek, the property owner shall convey to the County a conservation easement, as defined in
DCC 18.04.030, "Conservation Easement," affecting all property on the subject lot which is within 10
feet of the ordinary high water mark of the river or stream.
B. The form of the conservation easement shall be as prescribed by the County and may contain such
conditions as the County deems necessary to carry out the purposes described in DCC 18.04.030,
"Conservation Easement." -
C. Any public access required as part of a conservation easement shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Public access shall be limited to foot traffic for recreational purposes and the putting in or taking
out of boats.
2. Unless otherwise permitted by the affected property owner, public access does not allow public
passage through other private property to gain access to the property subject to the conservation
easement.
3. Unless otherwise permitted by state law, County ordinance or the property owner, no person on the
subject property as a result of a public access requirement of a conservation easement shall deposit
solid waste, damage or remove any property, (including wildlife and vegetation) maintain or ignite
fires or fireworks, discharge firearms or camp.
(Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 89-004 §3, 1989; Ord. 86-054 §2, 1986)
18.116.230. Standards for Class I and 11 Road Projects.
Class I and H road or street projects shall be reviewed against the applicable Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Plan element, shall be consistent with applicable road standards and shall meet the following
criteria:
A. Compatibility with existing land use and social patterns, including noise generation, safety hazards (e.g.
children in a residential area), and zoning.
B. Environmental impacts, including hazards imposed to and by wildlife (e.g. migration or water use
patterns).
C. Retention of scenic quality, including tree preservation.
D. Means to improve the safety and function of the facility, including surrounding zoning, access control
and terrain modifications.
E. In the case of roadways where modification results in a change of traffic types or density, impacts on
route safety, route land use patterns, and route nonmotorized/pedestrian traffic.
F. Consideration of the potential developmental impact created by the facility.
G. Cost effectiveness.
(Ord. 93-043 §19H, 1993)
PAGE. 19 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.116.240. Protection of Historic Sites.
Historic sites listed and described on the County's Goal 5 inventory, contained in the Resource Element of
the comprehensive plan, shall be protected or not protected in accordance with programs set forth in the
ESEE determinations for each individual site, adopted as part of the Resource Element of the
comprehensive plan and any comprehensive plan policies specifically applicable to the site. The uses
allowed and dimensional standards prescribed by the underlying zoning designations for designated historic
sites are not otherwise affected by the historic designation.
(Ord. 94-030 §1, 1994)
18.116.250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
A. Tier 1 Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities that do not require aviation lighting, that utilize
natural wood colors or muted tones from amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97-017, that utilize a
radio equipment cabinet or shelter that is less than 120 square feet in area and less than 10 feet in height,
and that meet the following standards are allowed outright in any zone other than the Exclusive Farm
Use, the Surface Mining Zone, and the Forest Zones and shall not be subject to any other provision of
the zone:
1. Facilities established by co-locating an additional set of antennas on an existing wireless
telecommunications tower or monopole that do not exceed the County approved height of the tower
or monopole, and do not add ground based equipment outside the existing lease area.
Notwithstanding any provision of DCC 18.116.250(A), facilities established : under DCC
18.116.250(A)(1) are permitted outright in any zoning district.
2. Facilities that make use of existing vertical structures, including but not limited to power or
telephone utility poles or towers, parking lot or street lighting standards or flagpoles. For the
purposes of DCC 18.116.250(A), a vertical structure is "existing" if it was constructed after
receiving all required land use and/or building permits on or before November 12, 1997, the date of
adoption of Ordinance 97-063. A pole location in a public right of way shall not be fenced.
Antennas established on an existing vertical structure shall be installed so that they do not exceed
the height of the existing vertical structure by more than 15 feet. New structures in this category are
limited to equipment shelters that do not require a building permit. Walk-in equipment shelters
shall be set back out of any road right of way at least 20 feet back from the pole location. Any
necessary road right of way permits shall be obtained froixn the Deschutes County Road Department.
Equipment cabinets shall be subject only to the road right of way setback requirements.
3. Facilities that are established by attaching or placing an antenna or set of antennas on an existing
building not designated as an historic structure, where the antenna array does not exceed the height
of the building by more than 15 feet. All equipment shall be stored inside a building. For the
purpose of DCC 18.116.250(A), a building exists if it was constructed after receiving all required
land use and/or building permits and was occupied on or before November 12, 1997, the date of
adoption of Ordinance 97-063.
4. Facilities that include installation of a new wood monopole that does not exceed the height limit of
the underlying zone, and does not exceed 45 feet in height. All equipment shall be stored in a
building that has a roof area that does not exceed 120 square feet in area or 10 feet in height. The
monopole, and any building, shall be set back from adjacent property lines according to the
setbacks of the underlying zone. Any microwave dishes installed on the monopole shall not exceed
a diameter of three feet. No more than two dishes shall be installed on a monopole or tower. The
perimeter of a lease area for a facility established under DCC 18.116.250(A) shall be landscaped
with shrubs eight feet in height and planted a maximum of 24 inches on center.
B. Tier 2 Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities that do not require aviation lighting, that utilize
a wood monopole for supporting antennas and/or microwave dishes and that meet the criteria in DCC
18.116.250 are allowed outright, subject to site plan review sunder DCC 18.116.250(B) (and not DCC
PAGE 20 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
18.124.060) in the following zones: La Pine Commercial District (LPCD), La Pine Industrial District
(LPID), Rural Industrial (RI), Rural Service Center (RSC), Rural Service Center-Wickiup Junction
(RSC-WJ), Terrebonne Commercial District (TeC), and Tumalo Commercial District (TuC). Lattice
towers or metal monopoles are not perrlitted with a Tier 2 facility.
1. An application for site plan review for a Tier 2 wireless telecommunications facility shall meet the
following criteria:
a. Maximum Monopole Height. In the LPCD, LPID, RSC, RSC-WJ, TeC, and TuC zones, the
maximum height of a monopole that supports antennas and/or microwave dishes for a wireless
telecommunications facility shall be 60 feet from finished grade. In the RI Zone, the maximum
height of a monopole that supports antennas and/or microwave dishes for a wireless
telecommunications facility shall be 75 feet from finished grade.
b. Setbacks. All equipment shelters shall be set back from property lines according to the required
setbacks of the underlying zone. A monopole shall be set back from any adjacent dwelling a
distance equal to the height of the monopole from finished grade, or according to the setbacks
of the underlying zone, whichever is greater.
c. Shelters. Any equipment shelter shall be finished with natural aggregate materials or from
colors approved with Ordinance 97-017.
d. Landscaping. The perimeter of a lease area shall be landscaped with plant materials
appropriate for its location. The lessee shall continuously maintain all installed landscaping
and any existing landscaping used to screen a facility.
e. Cabinets. Any equipment cabinets shall be finished with colors from amongst those colors
approved with Ordinance 97-063. Such colors shall be non-reflective and neutral.
f. Fences. A sight obscuring fence, as defined by DCC Title 18, shall be installed around the
perimeter of the lease area. The sight obscuring fence shall surround the monopole and the
equipment shelter.
C. Tier 3 Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities (or their equivalent uses described in the EFU,
Forest, and SM Zones) not qualifying as either a Tier 1 or 2 facility may be approved in all zones,
subject to the applicable criteria set forth in DCC 18.128.330 and 18.128.340.
1. A request for a written determination from the County as to whether a proposed facility falls within
Tiers 1 or 2 of DCC 18.116.250 shall be submitted to the County in writing and accompanied by a
site plan and proposed schematics of the facility. If the County can issue a written determination
without exercising discretion or by making a land use decision as defined under ORS 197.015(10),
the County shall respond to the request in writing.
2. A request for a written determination from the County as to whether a proposed facility falls within
Tiers 1 or 2 of DCC 18.116.250 that involves exercising discretion or making a land use decision
shall be submitted and acted upon as a request for a declaratory ruling under DCC 22.40.
(Ord. 2000-19 §l, 2000; Ord. 97-063 §1, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §7, 1997)
18.116.260. Rock Crushing Outside the SM Zone.
A. The following standards apply to all on-site rock crushing activity outside the SM zone:
1. The subject property has received site plan, tentative plat or final plat approval for the construction
or maintenance activity for which on-site rock crushing occurs;
2. Rock crushing equipment has a valid Oregon Department of Environmental Quality air contaminant
discharge permit;
3. The volume of material excavated on-site does not exceed the amount necessary to complete on-site
construction and maintenance;
4. Rock crushing equipment and all activity directly associated with crushing such as truck traffic is
located at least 500 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive or dust-sensitive use or structure, unless an
exception to this standard is allowed pursuant to DCC 18.116.260(F);
PAGE 21 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO Qunn r e,NCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
5. No off-site material is brought on site for crushing;
6. Rock crushing equipment is removed from the site within 30 days of completing the crushing
activity; and
7. Excavated and crushed material not used for on-site construction or landscaping is removed from
the site prior to occupancy, where a site plan is approved, or within 60 days of completing all road,
utility or other improvements where a tentative or final plat is approved.
B. On-site rock crushing for on-site construction and maintenance is permitted outright in any zone, except
Flood Plain (FP), or in any combining zone, except Wildlife Area (WA), Landscape Management (LM),
or Sensitive Bird And Mammal Habitat (SBMH), if the requirements of DCC 18.116.260(A) and the
following standards are met:
1. Rock crushing activity, including set up and crushing, occurs for no more•than 60 consecutive days
on a site within any one-year period;
2. Rock crushing occurs Monday through Friday, between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and not on legal
holidays; and
3. Water is available on-site to provide dust control.
C. Except for the activity allowed outright as set forth under DCC 18.116.260(B), a temporary use permit
for rock crushing for on-site construction and maintenance may be permitted in any zone or combining
zone subject to approval of the Planning Director or Hearings Body under the provisions of DCC
18.116.260(D).
D. Use limitations. On-site rock crushing provided for in DCC 18.116.260(C) may be approved upon
satisfaction of the requirements in DCC 18.166.260(A) and the following:
1. The site under consideration is suitable for rock crushing and rock crushing is compatible with the
existing uses within 500 feet of the rock crushing equipment, based upon the proposed duration of
use of the equipment and the natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to,
general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values;
2. An engineer registered in Oregon verifies in writing that the operation of the rock crushing
equipment will meet applicable DEQ noise standards; and
3. Sufficient water is available on-site to provide approved methods of dust control.
E. Application requirements. An application for a temporary use permit for on-site rock crushing shall
contain the following:
1. A detailed explanation of the proposed construction and rock crushing activities, including the
duration and operating characteristics of rock crushing;
2. A map drawn to scale showing the location of property boundaries, setbacks to the rock crushing
activity and any topographic features in the immediate vicinity of the proposed rock crusher;
3. A written explanation describing how each of the requirements in DCC 18.116.260(D) will be met;
and
4. Any additional information which will assist in the evaluation of the proposed rock crushing.
F. Setback exceptions. An exception to the setback requirement in DCC 18.116.260(A) shall be allowed
pursuant to a notarized written agreement for a lesser setback made between the owner of the noise
sensitive or dust-sensitive use or structure located within 500 feet of the proposed rock crushing activity
and the owner or operator of the rock crusher.
(Ord. 97-006 §2,1997)
18.116.270. Conducting Filming Activities in All Zones.
Any use of land or activity involving on-site filming and accessory and supporting activities as those terms
are defined in DCC 18.116.270 shall be governed by the provisions of DCC 18.116.270 and shall govern in
any conflict with other provisions of DCC Title 18 or DCC Title 22.
A. On-site filming and activities accessory to on-site filming are permitted outright in any zone or
combining zone of the County if:
PAGE 22 OF 28 - _EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
I . The activity would involve no more than 45 days on any site within any one-year period; or
2. The activity does not involve erection of sets that remain in place for filming longer than any 45-
day period and does not involve fill and removal activities regulated by DCC Title 18, involve
activities within a sensitive habitat area governed by DCC 18.90 or ulvolve activities, improvements
or structures covered by DCC 18.96; and
3. All evidence of filming activity and sets is removed from the site and the site is restored to its
previous condition within 15 days after the filming is complete.
B. Except for the activities allowed outright as set forth under DCC 18.116.270(A), on-site filming and
activities accessory to and/or supporting on-site filming may be conducted in any zone or combining
zone subject to the approval of the Planning Director or Hearings Body under the provisions of DCC
18.116.270(C). For the purposes of DCC 18.116.270(B) only, "support activities" shall include office
administrative functions such as payroll and scheduling; the use of campers, truck trailers and similar
temporary facilitates; and temporary facilities used for housing of security personnel.
C. Use Limitations. Any use of land or activity involving on-site filming and activities accessory to and/or
supporting on-site filming provided for under DCC 18.116.270(B) may be approved upon satisfaction
of the following criteria:
1. General Limitations.
a. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed filming or accessory activity based
upon the following factors:
i. The design, operating characteristics and duration of the use;
ii. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and
iii. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, general
topography, natural hazards and natural resource values.
b. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties based
upon the factors listed in DCC 18.116.270(C)(1)(a)(1), (ii) and (iii).
2. Special Limitations. In addition to the general limitations set forth under DCC 18.116.270(C)(1)(a)
and (b), the following additional special limitations shall be applied, where applicable:
a. Filming and accessory or supporting activities proposed for a site designated as exclusive farm
use by the zoning ordinance shall be subject to applicable provisions of ORS 215.296.
b. Filming and accessory or supporting activities involving structures or improvements regulated
under DCC 18.96 (flood plain zone) shall be subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.96
unless the Federal Emergency Management Agency authorizes a waiver of the provisions of
DCC 18.96.
c. Filming and accessory or supporting activities necessitating fill or removal activities shall
comply with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.128.270, except that no conservation
agreement shall be required where the fill is associated with a temporary structure or
improvement and such fill would be removed along with the temporary structure or
improvement under a fill and removal permit required by the County.
d. Filming and accessory or supporting activities shall not be allowed in any sensitive habitat area
designated under DCC 18.90 during the nesting period identified in the ESEE for each site.
3. At the completion of filming, any structure or improvement for which land use approval would
otherwise be required shall obtain the required approvals or the structure or improvement shall be
removed. The County may require the applicant to post a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the
cost of removal for any such structure or improvement.
4. The standards of DCC 18.116.270(B) may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to
ensure that this standard will be met.
D. Procedures for review. All applications subject to DCC 18.116.270 shall be processed in accordance
with DCC Title 22 with the exception that the Board of County Commissioners shall be the initial
hearings body.
E. Definitions.
PAGE 23 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
For the purposes of DCC 18.116.270 "on-site filming and activities accessory to on-site filming"
means:
a. Filming and site preparation, construction of sets, staging, make-up and support services
customarily provided for on site filming.
b. Production of advertisements, documentaries, feature films, television series and other film
productions that rely on the qualities of the zone in 'which the filming is to be located in more
then an incidental way.
2. For the purposes of DCC 18.116.270 "on-site filming and activities accessory to on-site filming" do
not include:
a. Facilities for marketing, editing and other such activities that are allowed only as a home
occupation; or
b. Construction of new structures that require a building permit.
(Ord. 97-007 §1, 1997)
18.116.280. Home Occupations.
A. Home Occupations Permitted Outright In All Zones.
1. Home occupations that operate from within a dwelling, have characteristics that are
indistinguishable from the residential use of a dwelling, and meet the criteria in paragraph (A)(2)
shall be considered uses accessory to the residential use of a dwelling.
2. Home occupations under this subsection that meet the following criteria are uses permitted outright
under Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, in all
zones:
a. Is conducted within a dwelling only by residents of the dwelling;
b. Does not serve clients or customers on-site;
c. Does not occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the dwelling;
d. Does not produce odor, dust, glare, flashing lights, noise smoke or vibrations in excess of that
created by normal residential use.
e. Does not include the on-site advertisement, display or sale of stock in trade.
B. Types. In addition to the home occupations allowed in Section A above, three Types of home
occupations maybe allowed with limitations on location and intensity of allowed uses. Type 1 allows
low intensity uses and Types 2 and 3 allow progressively greater intensity of uses.
C. Type 1. Where permitted outright, a Type 1 home occupation does not require a land use permit but
shall be subject to the following criteria. A Type 1 home occupation:
1. Does not require a minimum parcel size.
2. Is conducted within a dwelling or a residential accessory structure only by residents of the dwelling
3. Does not occupy more than 25 percent of the combined floor area of the dwelling including
attached garage and one accessory structure.
4. Creates no more than five (5) trips to the site per day for customers or clients, including parcel
delivery services;
5. May include employees or contractors that work off-site;
6. Does not produce prolonged odor, dust, glare, flashing lights or noise smoke, and vibrations in
excess of that created by normal residential use
7. Does not involve the on-site advertisement display or sale of stock in trade, other than vehicle or
trailer signage.
8. Does not include building or ground mounted signs.
9. Does not include outsides storage of equipment or materials used in the operation of the home
occupation.
10. Has adequate access and on-site parking for not more than one (1) customer, or delivery vehicle at
any given time.
. . PAGE 24 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
11. Allows on-site one (1) business-related vehicle or truck not exceeding 15,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight and one (1) other non-motorized wheeled equipment (trailer) which shall not exceed 3,000
pounds gross vehicle weight.
12. Complies with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division and the
Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. Compliance with the
requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division shall include meeting all building
occupancy classification requirements of the state-adopted building code.
13. Is conducted in such a way that it is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones,
resource-oriented character of its location.
14. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling in which the home occupation will be
established that would give the dwelling an outward appearance of a business.
15. Allows for servicing, inspecting, loading, and or dispatching of vehicles and equipment incidental
to the home occupation and stored within the dwelling, attached garage or accessory structure.
D. Type 2. A Type 2 home occupation may be allowed as a condtional use with an approved conditional
use permit subject to the approval criteria below. A Type 2 home occupation is not subject to the
approval criteria for a conditional use permit in DCC Chapter 18.128.015 or a site plan review under
DCC Chapter 18.124. Type 2 home occupations are subject to the standards of the zone in which the
home occupation will be established A Type 2 home occupation :
1. Is conducted from a property that is at least one-half (1/2) acre in size.
2. Is conducted within a dwelling and/or an accessory structure by residents of the dwelling and no
more than two (2) employees who report to the property for work.
3. May include employees or contractors that work off site.
4. Does not occupy more than 25 percent, up to a maximum of 1,500 square feet, of the combined
floor area of the dwelling, including attached garage and one (1) accessory structure. 5. May
include on-site sales of products associated with the home occupation that are incidental and
subordinate to the home occupation.
5. Creates no more than ten (10) business-related vehicle trips to the site per day by employees,
customers or clients, and parcel delivery services.
6. Has adequate access and on-site parking for not more than four (4) customer and employee, or
delivery vehicles at any given time.
7. Is limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, for operation.
8. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling or the accessory structure in which the home
occupation will be established that would give any building an outward appearance of a business.
9. Does not produce prolonged odor, dust, glare, flashing lights, noise, smoke, or vibrations in excess
of that created by normal residential use.
10. Complies with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division and the
Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. Compliance with the
requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division shall include meeting all building
occupancy classification requirements of the state-adopted building code.
11. May have one (1) sign, ground-mounted or wall-mounted, as defined in DCC Chapter 15.08, that is
no more than three (3) square feet in area, non-illuminated. The ground-mounted sign and support
shall not exceed 6 feet in height and is located on the property from which the home occupation will
operate. Such signs do not require a sign permit under DCC Chapter 15.08, Signs.
12. May be subject to an annual inspection, as a condition of an approval, to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section and the conditions of an approved conditional use permit.
13. Allows on-site one (1) business-related vehicle or truck not exceeding 15,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight and one (1) other non-motorized wheeled trailer which shall not exceed 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight.
14. Does not include outside storage of equipment or materials used in operation of the home
occupation.
PAC,F 25 QF 22 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
15. Is conducted in such a way that it is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones,
resource-oriented character of its location.
16. All employee, customer and delivery vehicle parking spaces shall be on-site and shall be located
outside of the required zone setbacks.
17. Any structure on the property where the home occupation is conducted shall be of a type normally
associated with the zone where it is located.
18. Does not include structural alterations affecting the (residential appearance of a building to
accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and, then, only after the
plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the Deschutes County Planning
Division.
19. Allows servicing, inspecting, loading, and or dispatching of vehicles and equipment incidental to
the home occupation and stored within the dwelling, attached garage or accessory structure.
20. Does not include the following activities:
a. Repair, towing, or storage of motorized vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to
automobiles, trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats.
b. Detailing, painting, and upholstery of motorized vehicles.
c. Businesses that store and use vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than or equal to
15,000 pounds or equipment with an operating weight greater than or equal to 10,000 pounds.
d. Appliance repair.
e. Welding or machine shop.
E. Type 3. Type 3 home occupations may be allowed as conditional uses with an approved conditional use
permit. Such uses are subject to the standards of the zonl in which the home occupation will be
established, in DCC Section 18.128.015, and the following Imitations.
A Type 3 home occupation:
1. Is conducted from a property that is at least one-half (1/2) acre in size.
2. Is conducted in such a way that it is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones,
resource-oriented character of its location.
3. Is conducted within a dwelling and/or an accessory structure by residents of the dwelling and no
more than two (2) employees who report to the property for work. May have a maximum of five (5)
employees at the home occupation located on property in an EFU, MUA10, or RR 10 zone and that
is at least 10 acres in size.
4. May include employees or contractors that work off site.
5. Does not occupy more than 35 percent of the combined floor area of the dwelling, including an
attached garage and one (1) accessory structure.
6. May include on-site sales of products associated with the home occupation that are incidental and
subordinate to the home occupation.
7. Creates no more than twenty (20) business-related vehicle trips to the site per day by employees,
customers or clients, including parcel delivery services.
8. Has adequate access and on-site parking for not more than five (5) customer, employee, or delivery
vehicles at any given time.
9. Is limited to the hours and days of operation proposed by an applicant and approved with a
conditional use permit.
10. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling or accessory structure in which the home
occupation will be established that would give the dwelling an outward appearance of a business.
11. Does not produce prolonged odor, dust, glare, flashing lights, noise smoke, or vibrations in excess
of that created by normal residential use.
12. Complies with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division and the
Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. Compliance with the
requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division shall include meeting all building
occupancy classification requirements of the state-adopted building code.
PAGE 26 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
13. May have one (1) sign, ground-mounted or wall-mounted, as defined in DCC Chapter 15.08, that is
no more than three (3) square feet in area, non-illuminated. The ground-mounted sign and support
structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height and is located on the property from which home
occupation will operate. Such signs do not require a sign permit under DCC Chapter 15.08, Signs.
14. May include outside storage of equipment and materials on parcels approved for a home
occupation, not to be included in the 35 percent of combined floor area.
15. Allows for servicing, inspecting, loading, and or dispatching vehicles and equipment incidental to
the home occupation and stored within the buffered and screened outside area.
16. Requires review of the home occupation approval every 12 months by the planning division to
ensure compliance with the requirements of this section and the conditions required for approval of
the use.
17. Conducts all home occupation activities within one or more structures on the property that are of a
type normally associated with the zone where it is located.
18. Locates all employee, customer and delivery vehicle parking spaces on-site and outside of the
required zone setbacks.
19. Parks all vehicles used by the operator to conduct the home occupation that have a gross vehicle
weight of 15,000 or more pounds in a garage, an accessory structure, or within a screened area
according to the requirements of DCC 18.116.280(E)(21)(a) through (e).
20. No structural alteration affecting the residential appearance of a building shall be allowed to
accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and then only after the
plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the Deschutes County Planning
Division.
21. Includes no outside storage unless the subject property is 10 or more acres in size and the storage is
setback a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines, and is maintained to screen materials and
equipment from residences on adjacent properties. The form of screening may include, but is not
limited to:
a. A sight-obscuring fence, as defined in DCC 18.04.030.
b. Intervening tree cover.
c. Topography.
d. Existing buildings on site.
e Introduced landscape materials, including, but not limited to, trees and/or shrubs on an earthen
berm.
(Ord 2007-021 § 1, 2007; Ord 2004-002 §24, 2004)
TABLE 1
DCC Section 18.116.030
OFF-STREET PARKING LOT DESIGN
A
B
C
D
E
F
9'-0"
9.0
12.0
22.0
30.0
0°
9'-6"
9.5
12.0
22.0
31.0
10'-0"
10.0
12.0
22.0
32.0
9'-0"
19.8
13.0
12.7
52.5
45°
9'-6"
20.1
13.0
13.4
53.3
10'-0"
20.5
13.0
14.1
54.0
9'-6"
21.2
18.0
11.0
60.4
60°
10'-0"
21.5
18.0
11.9
61.0
PAGE 27 OF 28 - EXHIBIT «r„ TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
9'-0"
21.0
19.0
9.6
61.0
70°
9'-6"
21.2
18.5
10.1
60.9
10'-0"
21.2
18.0
10.6
60.4
9'-0"
20.0
24.0
9.0
64.0
90°
9'-6"
20.0
24.0
9.5
64.0
10'-0"
20.0
24.0
10.0
64.0
A. Parking Angle
B. Stall Width
C. 20' Stall
D. Aisle Width-One Way*
E. Curb Length Per Car
F. Bay Width
* 24' Minimum for Two-Way Traffic
PAGE 28 OF 28 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW
18.124.010. Purpose.
18.124.020. Elements of Site Plan.
18.124.030.
Approval Required.
18.124.040.
Contents and Procedure.
18.124.050.
Decision on Site Plan.
18.124.060.
Approval Criteria.
18.124.070.
Required Minimum Standards.
18.124.080.
Other Conditions.
18.124.090.
Right of Way Improvement Standards.
18.124.010. Purpose.
DCC 18.124.010 provides for administrative review of the design of certain developments and
improvements in order to promote functional, safe, innovative and attractive site development compatible
with the natural and man-made environment.
(Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.124.020. Elements of Site Plan.
The elements of a site plan are: The layout and design of all existing and proposed improvements,
including, but not limited to, buildings, structures, parking, circulation areas, outdoor storage areas, bicycle
parking, landscape areas, service and delivery areas, outdoor recreation areas, retaining walls, signs and
graphics, cut and fill actions, accessways, pedestrian walkways, buffering and screening measures and street
furniture.
(Ord. 93-043 §22D, 1993; Ord. 93-005 §6, 1993)
18.124.030. Approval Required.
A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to
DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan
is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance.
B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following:
1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval;
2. Multiple-family dwellings with more than three units;
3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities;
4. All industrial uses;
5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including,
but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries,
mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and
6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones
(SMIA).
C. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall not apply to uses involving the stabling and training of equine
in the EFU zone, noncommercial stables and horse events not requiring a conditional use permit.
D. Noncompliance with a final approved site plan shall be a zoning ordinance violation.
E. As a condition of approval of any action not included in DCC 18.124.030(B), the Planning Director or
Hearings Body may require site plan approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
PAGE 1 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (,4/9/2008)
(Ord. 2003-034 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-008 §14, 1994; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 86-032
§1, 1986)
18.124.040. Contents and Procedure.
A. Any site plan shall be filed on a form provided by the Planning Department and shall be accompanied
by such drawings, sketches and descriptions necessary to describe the proposed development. A plan
shall not be deemed complete unless all information requested is provided.
B. Prior to filing a site plan, the applicant shall confer with the Planning Director or his representative
concerning the requirements for formal application. I
C. After the pre-application conference, the applicant shall submit a site development plan, an inventory of
existing plant materials including all trees six inches in diameter or greater and other significant species,
a landscape plan and architectural drawings including floor plans and elevations.
D. The site plan shall indicate the following:
1. Access to site from adjacent rights of way, streets and arterial.
2. Parking and circulation areas.
3. Location, dimensions (height and bulk) and design of buildings and signs.
4. Orientation of windows and doors.
5. Entrances and exits.
6. Private and shared outdoor recreation spaces.
7. Pedestrian circulation.
8. Public play areas.
9. Service areas for uses such as mail delivery, trash disposal, above ground utilities, loading and
delivery.
10. Areas to be landscaped.
11. Exterior lighting.
12. Special provisions for disabled persons.
13. Existing topography of the site at intervals appropriate to the site, but in no case having a contour
interval greater than 10 feet.
14. Signs.
15. Public improvements.
16. Drainfneld locations.
17. Bicycle parking facilities, with location of racks, signage, lighting, and showing the design of the
shelter for long term parking facilities.
18. Any required bicycle commuter facilities.
19. Other site elements and information which will assist in the evaluation of site development.
E. The landscape plan shall indicate:
1. The size, species and approximate locations of existing natural plant materials proposed to be
retained and new plant materials proposed to be placed on site.
2. Proposed site contouring.
3. An explanation of how drainage and soil erosion is to be dealt with during and after construction.
(Ord. 2003-034 §2,2003; Ord. 93-005 §7,1993; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.124.050. Decision on Site Plan.
A. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may deny the site plan or approve it. with such modifications
and conditions as may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the criteria and standards listed in
DCC Title 18.
B. The Planning Director or Hearings Body as a condition of approval may require that the applicant file
with the County a performance bond or other security approved by the governing body to assure full and
PAGE 2 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9%2008)
faithful performance of any required improvements. The bond shall be for the dollar amount plus 10
percent of the estimated cost of the improvements.
C. Planning Director or Hearings Body review shall be subject to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development
Procedures Ordinance.
(Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 86-032 §1, 1986)
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing
development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and
topographical features.
B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering
development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs
shall be protected.
C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities
for privacy and transition from public to private spaces.
D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps
for wheelchairs and Braille signs.
E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations
between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation
to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures.
F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties,
streets, or surface and subsurface water quality.
G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility
wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed,
located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties.
H. All above-ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and
neighboring properties.
1. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks,
etc.).
J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site.
(Ord. 93-043 §§21, 22 and 22A, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards.
A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments.
1. Private Areas. Each ground-level living unit in a residential development subject to site plan
approval, other than a development in the Sunriver UUC Town Center District, shall have an
accessible outdoor private space of not less than 48 square feet in area. The area shall be enclosed,
screened or otherwise designed to provide privacy for unit residents and their guests.
2. Shared Areas. Usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided for the shared use of residents and
their guests in any apartment residential development, other than in a development in the Sunriver
UUC Town Center District where usable outdoor recreation space is provided on a district-wide
basis, as follows:
a. Units with one or two bedrooms: 200 square feet per unit.
b. Units with three or more bedrooms: 300 square feet per unit.
3. Storage. In residential developments, convenient areas shall be provided for the storage of articles
such as bicycles, barbecues, luggage, outdoor furniture, etc. These areas shall be entirely enclosed.
B. Required Landscaped Areas.
PAGE 3 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
I . The following landscape requirements are established for multi-family, commercial and industrial
developments, subject to site plan approval:
a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped.
b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped.
2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(13)(1i(a), the following landscape requirements
shall apply to parking and loading areas:
a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be' improved with defined landscaped areas
totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space;
b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(a), a parking or loading area
shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet
in width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width.
c. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain:
i. Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average.
ii. Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than
eight feet apart on the average.
iii. Vegetative ground cover.
d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are
uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area.
e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than five feet.
f. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required.
g. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive.
h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines.
C. Nonmotorized Access.
1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as
required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities
shall be indicated on the site plan.
2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation:
a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multi-family
residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surface
pedestrian walkways, and similar techniques.
b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building
entrances to public streets and existing or planned, transit facilities. On-site walkways shall
connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on
adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, niulti-family, public or park use.
c. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border
parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and
landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from
obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible.
d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses
driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkway must be clearly identifiable through
the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method.
e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any
walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five
percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted, but are treated as ramps with
special standards for railings and landings.
D. Commercial Development Standards:
1. New commercial buildings shall be sited at the front yard setback line for lots with one frontage,
and at both front yard setback lines for corner lots, and oriented to at least one of these streets,
except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and Town Center (TC District and the La
PAGE 4 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District. The building(s) and any eaves, overhangs or awnings
shall not interfere with the required clear vision area at corners or driveways.
2. To meet the standard in paragraph (1) of this subsection, buildings developed as part of a shopping
complex, as defined by this title, and planned for the interior, rear or non-street side of the complex
may be located and oriented toward private interior streets within the development if consistent
with all other standards of paragraph (1) above and this paragraph. Interior streets used to satisfy
this standard may have on-street parking and shall have sidewalks along the street in front of the
building. Such sidewalks shall connect to existing or future sidewalks on public streets accessing
the site. The master plan for the shopping complex shall demonstrate that at least one half of the
exterior perimeter of the site that abuts each public street, will be developed with buildings meeting
the standards of paragraphs (D)(1) or (D)(3) of this subsection.
3. An increase in the front yard setback may be allowed where the applicant can demonstrate that one
or more of the following factors makes it desirable to site the new building beyond the minimum
street setback:
a. Existing development on the site;
b. Lot configuration;
c. Topography of the lot;
d. Significant trees or other vegetative features that could be retained by allowing a greater setback;
e. Location of driveway access. Such an increase in the front yard shall be the minimum necessary to
accommodate the reason for the increase.
f. Architectural features, driveways, landscaping areas equal to or greater than the depth of the
structure, and outdoor commercial areas, when at least one half of the structure meets the minimum
street setback.
4. Off-street motor vehicle parking for new commercial developments in excess of 10,000 square feet
shall be located at the side or behind the building(s), except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park
(BP) District and Town Center (TC) District. Off-street parking proposed with a shopping
complex, as defined by this title, and intended to serve buildings located in the interior or rear of the
complex may have parking in front of the building provided the overall master plan for the site
satisfies paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(Ord. 2008-015 §4, 2008; Ord. 2006-008 §8, 2006; Ord. 2002-033 §1, 2002; Ord. 2001-044 §5, 2001; Ord.
97-078 §7, 1997; Ord. 93-063 §3, 1993; Ord. 93-043 §22B, 1993; Ord. 93-005 §8, 1993)
18.124.080. Other Conditions.
The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the following in addition to the nunimum standards of
DCC Title 18 as a condition for site plan approval.
A. An increase in the required yards.
B. Additional off-street parking.
C. Screening of the proposed use by a fence or landscaping or combination thereof.
D. Limitations on the size, type, location, orientation and number of lights.
E. Limitations on the number and location of curb cuts.
F. Dedication of land for the creation or enlargement of streets where the existing street system will be
impacted by or is inadequate to handle the additional burden caused by the proposed use.
G. Improvement, including but not limited to paving, curbing, installation of traffic signals and
constructing sidewalks or the street system that serves the proposed use where the existing street system
will be burdened by the proposed use.
H. Improvement or enlargement of utilities serving the proposed use where the existing utilities system will
be burdened by the proposed use. Improvements may include, but shall not be limited to, extension of
utility facilities to serve the proposed use and installation of fire hydrants.
1. Landscaping of the site.
PAGE 5 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
J. Traffic Impact Study as identified in Title 17.16.115.
K. Any other limitations or conditions that are considered nece$sary to achieve the purposes of DCC Title
18.
(Ord. 2006-005 §1, 2006; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 93-043 §22C, 1993)
18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards.
Any dedications or improvements to the road right of way required under DCC 18.124 shall meet the
standards for road right of way improvements set forth in DCC Title 17 and any standards for right-of-way
improvements set forth in DCC Title 18 for the particular zone in question.
(Ord. 97-003 §4, 1997)
PAGE 6 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-015 (4/9/2008)
Attachment 5
March 20, 2008
Terry Hansen Payne
Deschutes County Planning Department
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment Revisions
Deschutes County Files PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
Dear Terri:
Please accept our latest revisions for the proposed Sunriver Town Center. As you have heard, while the
recent proposed land sale of SROA land to SilverStar Destinations received a majority vote (56%), it fell
just short of the 60% super-majority required for the vote to pass. Subsequently, we have studied the
possibility of developing the Town Center on a smaller site that we originally anticipated. We believe
that the project can succeed on a smaller site but believe that a few minor modifications are needed.
The changes that we propose are as follows:
18.108.020 (B) Solar Setbacks - Some small pieces of commercially zoned land adjoin the Silver Star
property. SilverStar had planned to acquire these parcels and include them in the Town Center District in
its original plan. The scaled-back plan does not include these parcels and they will not be rezoned Town
Center. We have proposed new text language that will exempt SilverStar from providing solar setbacks
adjacent to these commercial properties. The proposed text will, however, continue to protect Fremont
Crossing, a commercial area that has been developed with residential uses. Since the exact size of the
Town Center District is not yet known, this will allow for the intent of the originally proposed zone to be
feasible in a number of alternate configurations.
18.108.055 - We cleaned up a few clerical inconsistencies when referring to the TC District.
18.108.055 (E) Use Limits - We worked with the SROA Board to slightly revise this language. We
removed the exemption for parking areas from the 50% residential space cap for the ground floors of
mixed use buildings. In its place, we are requesting that residential units that do not face a sidewalk or
public plaza will not count against this cap. We have also agreed that ground floor areas facing a public
plaza will not be used for residential units or for hotel rooms. This will help to ensure the commercial
vitality that the community desires.
18.108.055 (H) District Setback - While we added the term "minimum" to these setbacks, we are
continuing to work with the SROA Board to refine this language to our mutual satisfaction. We will be
submitting some additional text on this issue shortly.
18.108.055 (J) Zone and Conceptual Site Plan Coverage - We added this text to allow landscape areas
that are in the district but are owned by entities or persons other than SilverStar to be counted towards the
15% landscape area as required in the county Site Plan requirements. This landscaping requirement could
now be satisfied over the entire site plan area rather than on a lot by lot basis. As noted in section (K), the
inclusion of landscaped areas on a site plan will require the consent of the property owner who owns the
land in question. The areas shall be included in the Conceptual Site Plan application.
Sunriver Town Center, Text Amendment Revisions
18.108.055 (L) (6) Application and Approval Process - We added this text to ensure that existing bike
paths will be maintained on land within the proposed Town Center district.
We realize that county staff may have some comments on the exact wording of this text. We look
forward to reviewing this with you and making any changes that you will require to meet your
satisfaction.
Respectfully submitted,
John Goodman and Mark Smuland
SilverStar Destinations
2
- r'
t imp
u
LU
Lrm
z
CO
w
c9
~ 1 9 % of
C 'i m
7R~r Y
® _ ti
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
1
I
I
1
O
W
y-
=
W
J
C'1
_
c~
O
Z
v
O
V1
;0
C.
c
c
low
LL
0
~
z
O
.N
'vvvvv
W
■ ~
.ice
L
w
a+
L
o
.
=
O
V
V
W
d
N
r~1
LJ
MEMEN
■ "
%V
V
~
4)
QL~
W
~
L
V
_
O
>
"
low r d
CO) SOMME
1
1
1
I
■ 1
I
I
I
1
1
i
I
,
I
I
I~
I
O
E
P
b
0
qz
1
I
I
r ~
I
^ i
,
m'
D ~
I _
!V^' I
1
C
Z
T I
I
N '
I
m
m m m
c n ~ ` cn \ I
O O M c c
E ~
Q° CD < :Z
CD
(n-h = < CD
C o
° CD ~
n O
CD 0 3
O n,..+- 3•
CD c
O ~
0h
0
O
-
(n
CQ CD
c
• CD
Q CD
n CD
O CD n
3 v 0-
:3
= tO
C Cn
r_+
3
CD N
N
n
Y
cn
CD
CD
O_
O
X
w
3
CD
O
r~
CD
m- X
CD
C) CD
<CD
CD 3
go O
--j CD
O
W
CD O
~t
CD CD
0%
.
C D-
0
sO
Q
rF
Os
CD
cn O
1
CD
.0.
CD
0
o w
O ~
c
C
co
z
O
0
c
n
0
z
■
D ~p
CL
~C
~c
A
CD
Cn
o~
O
n
0
z
X
U)
0
90
0
0
z
)
D
r
r
m
z
0
m
cn
CL
0
(D
0
0
1
Y'
t,_1
.S
~a
r?i
r~
=M
i
r
m
r
YI
m
CD
c
z
~o
m
X
z 'ER -
gs
Np ~ .
i. t
4
Kf Ai Y.
CL
g a
a~ • f
F
r
r N
rSE
a ~ ~,~t r°' all ! t~
x
Jl~
cr,
JD~
ti r nti
f -M
= Y
'm' y r
.01
Mg, b
a T 5y~a
i J~ U f O Y wY ~ o
C?
p ,
f -
.C.
N
c,
® E
t
S
n
Gh
pA
16
T
T
Y
A
TZ
N
0
w
V
C
z
C
rn
z
r
O
C
Z
0
O
z
n
m
-v
r
■
o
"
z
C7
(C)
0
O
O
z
0
:3
cfl
CD
C:
CD
CD
CD
(D
=3
O
f
--I
ID
--l
CD
--I
CD
CD
0
CD
C
(C
CD
Cy)
co
Cn
•
(D
r♦
3
CD
(C)
3
T
O
3
r-t
"
a):3
Cl)
Q
S~
N
O
n
0
CD
--s
lY
m
`D
•
~
1"1'7
~
'
L
♦`TTIVV/
o
CD
~
~
~
•
~
CD
.
CD
V)
~
~
CD
C
~
90
O'
r-~
cr
i
e
O
m
-1
i
Z
V '
m
r
r
Y/
m
C
z
X
m
X
(D •
+
Q
U) CD
(D
(D =3
N C/)
Cl)
o~
(D
o 0 Cn
n
■
• n
(D _
( Q (D C
o /
~
n ~ ~
rah (D (D
C: 0
(D C 0
a ~
. CD =3 --I
N o r+
o 3
3 CD
3.
CD
o `c T
o
0 :3
:3 rmmt-
U) CT
v
CD
CD
p 0
3 (D6p Q
0 CD 0 C: T.
M 3
CD 3 m
CL (n 0 CD (D C.0
(n (D -
(0 0 CD
0 CD
(D (D
(n •
3
CD n
Q CD
_
CD CD :3
3
o
o.
- tkf C
z
Qj"
.r
6
~C
rt'"
r
m
0
r
D
z
0
VJ
C
r
Source: Deschutes County, Oregon
Lio
CD CCD 0 m
3yCOD.
~
CD CD (NO x O.
~2
3 a'
N v
ooh
o cn
o a
3
-0 CD
0 co
3 ~ CA)
C
■
0
0
CD
O
;
co
M
~
0
0
X
m
Cc n+, 3
:3
3'
a)
(C)
Q
C.0
CD
0
-
ZF
~
0-
v
~
o
~
:
co
mo
o
CD
Q
CD
y)
(
O
2)
0
U
~
r
tv
=3
0
=r
i
V
0
0
P
CC)
U)
■
~
CD
0
0
C
D
~
,
O
-
CD
O
N
s
~
C
D cn
O
o
:
3
CD
0
:
v
O
N
CD
0
rn
O
=
m
-
57
0
Q
n
C)
0
"
0
~
.
~
°c
°
_
'
~
o
c
-
~
l<
0
0
0
G
0
D
o
0
A
o
Q
c
in
C
D
c n
0
r-
CD
~
U)
CD
. . .
co C/) U)
77 :37 CD
0 .
CD
CD
0
■
-0 m
CD
U.
G
0
0 CD
Q
1-1
U)
r3l
cn
■
D
Q
O
Q
O
CQ
(C)
Z
n
rn
Z
V J
J
O
V
rn
O
z
Wit:
r
O
m
Cl)
c
z
X
m
X
o
4
X
0
0
o
o
O
=r
CL
CD
CD
n
O
CL
:E
O
~
0
0
0
-D
U)
-
0
CL
m
M
--I
.
0
O
Q
CD
CD
CD
~
00
cn
CD
_0
3
CD
O
11
0
CD
CD
'
m
•
O
CD
x•
3
-
Z
CD
-P
O
5•
Y\J t
J -
C
z
r'1
O
r
■
•
•
•
C:
CD
CD
Q
-n
O
CD
~
CD
C.
0
p
CD
(D
0)
~
CD
O
3
O
3
tcn
-
CD
(n
1
(D
<
N
CD
CD
.
(n
r±
CFO
O
Cn
W
CD
C
O
o
CD
.
C
D
3
-0
n
~
o
W
C
CD
C:
~
0
:3
C:
-0
C
07
CD
c
n
l<
-11
C
CD
■
O
3
C
O
v 3
CDL O
CD CD
:3 -n
CD- cn
C: -0
~I
O 0
=3 =T
-n m
CD cp
~CD
~T
N
m
C
m
z
c
m
Cf)
z
~ o
c
v
7
i ~
CD
0
t
0
i ~
CD
rri
'a
v
Co
0.
i
0
O
,o
co
0
cn
CD
CD
3
N
0
cQ
.0
m
3
< M
0
r <
G)
M D
v
C 3
C
zT
N N
co
v
m
N
O
O
11
■
n~
ch
D
0
0
3
X
0
cr
cn
0
CD
X
CD
0
r-4-
CD
0-
0
CDL
CD
n
CD
CD
t
0
CD
'CD
cn
D
V/
0
3
D
CD
G
r~
0
rf
iT
0
CD
3
0
Z
0
cn.
CO
0
0
cn
CD
CD
■
T
0
D
0
3
-m
♦ D
CD
CD
N
O
O
cn
I:T P
_v
rn
O
N
m
z
r
c
z
m
-t '
-r i
r !
!
!
!
!
m'
c
m'
O n
cno~
0
o~
0) X
D
0) 'C
V'
0 U)
CD ~i►.
N
v
/-100.
a)
✓~F
Op
33
oCD
C~
0,71
R
o-n
c-
cn =
O 0.
CD o-'
c
n
n
CD
N 2) ~
~CD (a.
i
0 x
fl) CD CD
:3 C:
~Q
0
CD Q
c~
xX
0) CD
CD
n D
~ CD
ago
;a r
<
~CD
4y _ u)
I . V'
R (D -11
p
;:W CD r% x
•
0(a
3o
m
0
m
m
X
O
D
z
Y
Z
m
r
V
C
z
C
m
J_
iT
C
G)
m
CD
c
z
m
X
~
C
En
O
O
0'
CAD
~
O
n
O
o
3
o
C
-n
w
co
0 O
n
>
Q
Q
3
$
CD
CU
(n
3
<
CO
=3
C. a
O
Q
0
O
r+
a-
0
Q
=L
CD
CD
•
CD c:
a)-
O ~
CD
Q t~
CD
0 Q
CD
.
v ~
(D
CD
■
c
cn
CD
co
4
-P
O
Cal
O
c n
r _
Id }
, "~,e,.914 • r
tA-
q i'
4
n
^I,
m
c
z
~J
lak
• • I ;
i
I ,
I
1
m
I
,
■
■
z
D
0
N
0
O
=3
O
CD
c
-n
0)
Q
=3
cn
r-4-
O
C4
0
M
CD
--4
0
00
0
3
77-
O
W
U)
--#I
4~`
3
r--l-
0
0
CD
Cu
M
CD
<
CD
rn
o
cQ
C
0
n
_
0
~
M O
U)
m
CD
m
z
r
G)
m
Cl)
z
m
X
v
CZ
CD
CD
0
O
CD
3
CD
r+
CD
0
CD
CD
w
CD
3
w
Cn'
O_
Q.
CAD
cn
-f,
O
3
0-
CD
CD
CD
CD
a
3
CD
n
CD
D
G7
m
z
c~
0
z
0
0
z
g
a
3
(D
D~
(D
2:-o
< o
c
~C.)
CD
-o
8
r
O
m
CD
c
z
m
X
■
0
CQ
0
Q
■
0
n
:5.
Co
U)
cn
z
CC)
ED
(DD.
2)
O
n
O
3
3
l<
Cl)
r-.
CO
G
CD
(D
CD
Q
0
C
CD
CD
C
o~
cm
w
n
O
O
■
CD
w
3
0
D
r
r
m
rn
O
D
O
z
r
G)
c
TZ
/T
m
X
• " - t
♦ f =ti
F. r
t
fn
-r rn. n
CD r'.
<
CD _ ti.
r
• i.
Uq (D
07
F
~
S
1
■
w..
I
•
D
cn
O
O
3
O
Q
c
0-411
O
rCD
cn
CD
■
n
O
CD
n
nImo`
O
O
0
CD
O
CD
CD
Q
CD
O
3
0
m~
♦D
■
UJ
0
~CCD
C'n
F-f-
O
CD
I
ET
cn
O
0
CD
CD
c
V,
O
3
Cn
CD
cn
ca.
'rf
V+
■
CD
O
3
3
e--F
O
(
cn
CD
r
cm
~mh
CD
3
0
r
m
z
z
n
0
C
Z
O
n
C
(DD
D ~p
a
v C
CD
DTI
r
G7
z
Tm
N
C7
o
5'
C
2)
C)
°
zy
°
(D
°
(
m
:7
cr
0
CD
0
-
cn
0)
0
cn
(
CT
n
0
0
CD
9L
cn
to
Cp
°
CD
Q
o
O
°
3
~
CD
~
°
W
-z
CD
O
M
0
- .
r+-
°
0
M
Q°
CD
a)
-
CD
1
0
~
-
c
n-1
CD
0
3
2)
~
<
C'n m
CL -
w
CD
Q
~
cr
'D
to
tn:
CD
C
D
p
X
C:
cr
CD
;-t-
°
CD
~
CD
Q
cn
+
CD
cn
"1
CD
90
ch
0
-1
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD 40
•
CL k.,
,
W 14
mo-
(
'sr
fit. 4
~ 3 r W
I
O
~ fro
i I ~
~
( ~ ' ' ~'Fk+'~+~-
.
_
V . _
c n
®
`
1S 4
S 41!Z 9N-
E
~
-
111
-
!
~
~.544uet1_a-~:.
-
(
_ I-
f
m x
~
n a' .ILtiW.~gnAlf~d
r
m
D
G7
m
z
cn
-v
m
z
0
z
Y
r
O
r
_T
i~
`^O
V I
m
Vf
c
zz
T
m
X
0
0
3
CD
cr
w
0
T
C
c~ io o o
3
cn
o
o' rn
=3 =3
0 0
(n 3
c 3
CD
<
Fn'
0 a)
:3 :3
CD Q.
0
CD
w 0
0 0
3
~3/~\
CD \V
3
: V
rn rf
<m
V M
-1 r+
m
C
C7
m
0
D
C7
O
z
7rl
C
Cn
O
;o
cn
t
t
r
G)
m
x..
CD
c
z
m
X
0
0
<
O
c
n
CD
~
rh
rF
r
CD
0
C/)
CD
-n
n
CD
0
CD
~F
v
m
\
V
T
1
~f
C
~h
kr
N
Cfl
N
-4
W
O
N
CO
co
O
W
-P
N
w
O
O
o'
o
'
00
N
_
p
n
■
rF
iL
a)
O
2)
~
CI)
CP
%0<
CD
V/
•
C7
O
<
CD
CD
~
m
\V
m
Cr
V/
•
C
cn
O
Q
-
3
m
O
g
N
CD
CD
CD
Q
=3
■
D
0
CD C:
(D 0-
CL 0
Cf
p. f.
O ~
c: 3
CD
CD
1-1
i
t
t
t
t1
t
C
C!)
W
Iii
0
n
n
C
D
z
n
'n
r
G)
m
c
z
m
X
c Cn
o 3 CD
CD
cn
o CD
CAD
CD
o 3
(n m
7-
Xi:
CD CD
cn
o =r
3
cn
3
CD
Cr CD
CD (n
CD
CD Sy
Q CD
CD'
~
;0
m
cn
C
r
m
v)
(n
>
D
D
O
U1
(n
Cn
v
v
CD
o
-0
m
r
C
C
0
_
°
v
c
°
v
cn
CU
O
0
co
Q
o
CD
cn
cn
-0
U)
-n
-n
-n
Q
<
<
< m
~
v
-n
v
v
cn
~
~
W
=
=
@
N
rC-')I-
o
m
0
0
0
<
c
CD
c
CD
CC
CD
W
0
o
CD
CO
C
D
o
r
C~
C~
C~
~
Cn
cn
cn
~
cn
o
cn
cu
c
cu
c
o
c
CD
c
cn
n
n
n
n
o
0
o
O
cn
v
O
O
Cl)
C
CC
=
~
~
-69
v
o
Cn
00
CTI
CD
--4
00
Cn
CD
(D
CD
O
0
cn
(
m
a
Z3
CD
'-n
-n
Cn
<
CD
CD
Cn
cn
-n
CD
M
-n
b
o
o
cQ
cQ
o
a
(n
cn
cn
cn
(n
cn
OO
Co
al
~
C -n
W
W
Cn
O
N
W
11
11
~I
CO
11
O
O
,
-0
O
0
0
-
O
;A
O
O
O
W
CD
O
cn
c)
O
(n
(n
O
W
O
O
O
a
0
O
O
O
-n
-n
Cn
O
O
O
-0
CD
O
O
O
CD
N
-n
CD
a
Z3
CD
CD
to
CD
SO
O
(n
O
-1
-1
-h
-69
O
O
N
(n
a)
CD
cn
m
m
CD
D
r
r
rn
n
O
z
0
V J
s
m
0
m
Cl)
X
■ ■
UJ 00 E
CD
0 :3
Q ~
0
CD
V~ C0 0
G
cr (n
CD =r
CD 0
C
1 0
~ rp Cn
Q
0 (D
(C) CD
CL
CD
o0
0
Q
::3 CD
0 CL
CD
(n En
14-
■
CD
Q.
3
CD
Q.
0
3
CD
O
vi
0
0
0
CD
m
3
CD
Cl)
0
O
m
O
z
R
N
a~
a CD
s-o
_
CD
0
r.
G)
m
v'
z
X
X
. . . .
77
0
0
0
U
0
C 0
CD
A
I
0
Cf)
0
3
l<
0
3
0
C
CD
(D
_-3
X-
0
CD0
CD
0
0
3
c-
0
0
0
3
cr
CD
Q.
0
CD
A
0
CD
3
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0-
0
~cn
0
CD v
(n cn
=r 0
0
c
cn
cr
0
0
0
(D
CD
0
CD
0
0
3
CD
cn
c0
C~
D
r
r
m
z
G)
m
U)
O
0
L f
a p
v n
CD
N
S
4
A
C
3
CD
(7 CDC
CD O
cl
o
CD
co
O
O
4
c
n
n
m
CD
C
r
G)
m
90
0
0
d
m
x
r.
Fri
G)
m
c
z
m
X
.
C
CD
=
n
C-).
CCD
CD
c
o
o
<
n
C°
Co
~
CL
CD
57
o
C
D
°
CD
cn
Q
CD
<
CD
CD
3
0
~
-1-
CD
CD
(
CD
■
CD CD
CD CD
0
cn CD
CD=r00
3
3
■
o
C
0
CD
(
Q
0
CD
*
=r
CD
CD
o
cn
C
r
r
D
m
z
O
Z
n
m
z
m
r
z
-n
G7
m
c
z
m
O
. -
O
i
v
O
a
co
CD
Cl)
CD
rn~
~ V
CD
Z. co
a)
CD CD
0
N: co
Cl)
~ O
CD CD
ZF
CD QQ
CL
r
D
n
m
D
z
G7
CO ` 00 m Cs W N 1
i
i
I
I
i
i
1
I
G)
_i
CD
c
m
r' U) D z m z C~
CZD < 3 0rJoYc~f+
iv
G r CD .z: Cn
Z3 r-4-
=5 C7 CQ CD 0
O O CQ 7T ,c
ZID
Z3 C/)
Yr,
p cD m ;Cp n
Cl)
I ' ' :ee: > 5 ' i..v : 4
r ,
'l V k
Q
CD
Q
,-l-
0
CD
CD
CD
(n
CD
C
I
v
Q
CD
D
U)
CD
(C)
rrt
r~
CD
'Q
Cn
--h
0
n
I
0
3
3
CD
cn
r
^D
J
rn
D
Z
V
V
cam.-°-.~..af5
CD n
-0 CD CD
o 3
> LT
CD Z
p~
o
3
CD
CD CD
~ 0
o
CD
W
<
G)
m
cn
c
z'
m
0o
=37 -1
O
C
CD T. c~
<
o CL
(n 3
3
CD
3
0
C-
CD
0 m 0 m 0 m
_p Q > n _K
0 CD CD
S2. CD CD 0 C- X 11% cn
< O (n CD CD
CD -0
E)7 0 0 ~ < u
0 ,.-f < cn
CD 0 CD
0 cn CD LO CD
c 3 5
W rn_ _
O X • ~ CD CD ~
3 cn :3 O
CD 'r-l- c
9
CDs 0
0 R.
CD 0
2
m
D
r
2
r
r
D
G7
m
O
z
0
m
z
m
m
O
m
Cl)
c
z
m
X
O
0
~
2)
~
=37
CD
O
O
<
CD
Q
p
Cn
CD
O
3
a7
5.
to
CD
n
3
CD
ca
c
O
c j
~G
CD
-
CD
0
F-11
CD
M
o
~
~
o
o
~
3
Q
_0
.
U)
3
CD
a
CD
3
c
<
_
0
C7
O
c
z
m
n
z
z
r~,
T
< I
I
r
;
G)
T
Cl)
C
m
r
1
G);o z
<
0
0 CD CD
cD1~
CD M
W
<
CD
G) ;0 ET CO
~vo
-
1
CD
C7
j
y
<
Z
o
m
(D
O
CD
:3
(D W
cn
c
0Z
:3
v
rt
n
7
C
z0
_
0
0)
A~
(D O
co
`G
E-i G)=
v (Q' -
°
n 77
C
O (D
D
~
CD
= 0)
y N
N
_
C
<D
D
co
CD N 7
Ic3
-
o
'
8 =
. 2)
n
<
G)
n
y
d
v
o
(o
W~
N
~
(D
CD
G);U Z3 00
~0v`D
-
=
1
0
1
a
2
CD90
X
n
m
1
0
M
c
m
o
(D
0
(D
3
~
:3
cn
CC)
W
N
o
<
0
Q
N
_
=
N
=
2)
n
c)
o
0
Z
D
KOS
m
c~
z
D
z
m
0
(CD
s -CD
a
(D
S
i
i
Fri
G
m_
i
Cl)
VC
Z
<
m
■ ■
■
C
>
o
~
0
~
c
~
CD
.
~
~
'
(n
<
I
c
3
CD
C
D
~
C
CD
X
O
w
S
ST
O
O
r
~
Q
O
-
=
Q
3
O"
O
rn
C
O
70
cn
O
(n
3
m
` D
<
'
V
■ ■
O
O
O
n
O
4.
O
(D
~
<
3
Q
O
CD
M
3
N
,
O
O
O
+1
cn
O
T
^
3
O
Q
0"
a
'
^
(n
.
go
~
O
m
K
O
D
2
C7
m
0
2
D
z
Z
i
m
C
z '
C i
m'
Q)
co
CD
C
Q)
t~D
Z3
1
CD
o.
O
(p
c~
0
O
CD
c
o
o -6 -0
o
CD
o
c
o
lD
D
CD
m
w
W r%)
-4
rn
O
C
CD
o
\
Q
O
o
N
o
~
cfl
0
w CA)
w vs
0 0
O
~
Q
o
CY)
W C
00
CCDD
~
O
(mn
~
Ab O
0
O
p
CD
O
W
w
CJ1
w
w
N w
-a
O
O
o
Co
O tO
~
(D
C)
CD
CD
rmmpL
G
CD
r-IlL
CD
mn
0
CD~
U)
N
O
O
0
C)
G)
z
2
O
c
m
z
O
r
O
C7
O
-o
O
O
z
r
-r
i
r
M
c
z
m;
X
■
■
■
■
0
D
CL
-0
<
O
(D
CD
CD
•
•
•
•
CD
~
•
--o
Q
O
C:
CD
~
C:
-0
CD
0
D
0
Z
0
~
0
,--F-
.
cn
-
Cr
CD
CD
CD
o
o
o
<
~
CD
-
-
.
cu
cn
~
3
.
CD
(M
~
CD
Q
U)
CD
Cr
-P-
o
cp
CD
CD
O
(n
o
(n
-0
-0
~
~
o
~
~
o
CCD
;Z.
.
O
_0
0
~
o
~
CD
-0
Z
CCD
D
S?O
Q
0
C
D
KIN
m
m
c
z
O
G)
z
G)
10
G)
c
m
CD
~
TT
CD
CD
zz.
•
CD
CD
C~
CD
CD
(D
a-
~
CD
.
C~L
CD
o•
-
a
CD
o
CDi
_0
CD
Z
(D
CD
~
C
O
O
CD
C7
n
.
cD
co
CD
C
n
o
Cn
CD
Q)
cf)
C
I
CD
_
CD
O
C
cn
D
C
C
CD
a-
cD
o
C
.
~
a,
CD
Q)
.
C
-
c
C3,
o
c
D
~
:3
co
CD
CD
CD
CD
U)
0
CD
CD
v
n
r-tl
CD
Is
CD
CD
CD
C
C
m
D
r
m
D
r
C
(
m
C-0
Cl)
o
n
co
Yv
c~
o
o
CD
m
o
D
(D
CD
rn
co
cn'
cn
c
,rt
o
~
CD
C
CD
0
o
0
o
C
D
=
o
~
CD
~
cD
m
°
~
o
Q
o
~
~
o
3
CD
CD
~
/
o
CD
CD
"1
CD
-0
CD
CD
x
~^T
=3
C n
r'f
Y~
f~
0
A
CD
(D
cn
.
C
D
n
o
(n
CD
(n
0
~
CD
\
o
0
CD
(n
CD
CD
Q
=3
.-q-
0
U)
_
U)
CD
(!1
CD
CD
-n
(n
=3
0 :3
=
O
-1
2)
-
}
O
(n
A3
o
1
o
n
=
3
_
CD
3
V
3
CD
w
I
"
M
0
`r
CD
rr
3
CD
(n
w
CL
~ i
I
m
I
^ I
GJ
m'
`_1 E
C ,
Z
I
m
I
1
I
1
Ern
i7
i
I
I
I
1
I
cn
c
0
C)
=r
=
0
Q
_0
o
<
3
-0
-n
=
N
FD'
FC-D-o'
=3
O
CD
~
m
O
90
X
O
rv
a-
D
C
C~
~
°
c
0
)
•
O
CD
c
(n
~ .
:
3
i3
j A\
.01,
CD
in
0
w
0
CD
~
C
O
r--r
<
;
T
c:
0
r
;
CD
:3
=3
<
°
~
O
~
C
D
G)
X
CD
CD
C
Q
O
-
~
z
n
_
O.
c
m
X
(D
CD
cn
0
0
3
3
0
m
x
.o
CD
CD
0
CD
Z
m
D
r
m
z
D
N
m
k
m
Z
m
=r
~t
C
r
YJ
m
to
c
m
X
0
CD
rr,
0
CD-
CD
m
a
(D
C
CD
8
0
7
CD CD
rmf
D
♦ D
O_ U)
CD
~CD
~(n
QC/)
=T -0
0 CD
~Q
o 3
CD
Q
CD c.
CAD CCD
CAD
~CD
~ x
w 0
CD n
CD CD
M. fA
CD
CD Q
I
0
O
O
3.1!
CD
V
3
CD
CD
CD
n
cn
l
710,
O
n
D
V,
a
cy,
CD
0
3
CD
Fn,
CD
CD
CL
O
3
CCD
SU
O
C
CD
I
CD
CD
m
O
D
O
3
CD
A
CD
-1
CD
3
cn
CD
w
0
3
CD
A
Cam.
CD
CD
CD'
0
CD
z
m
m
D
r
m
z
D
N
m
k
m
z
m
G
m
c'
Z
m
■
■
■
■
■
3
m
o
cn
<
_
'
c
--3,
0
0
cn
`D
r-4-
0
3
°
O
~
Q
N
°
C
°
p
CD
<
o
, -t.
=
-n
-
0
ISO
(n
CD
(D
o
o
o
CD
o
o
w
(n
n
o
w
D
D
C~
r. .
P
f
S
i
i
f
i
E
i
S
1
i
F
€
f
a
C
CD
> ~p
CD
Z.
O
CL
c
<D
-o
0
0
0
r
C
O
Z
yp.~
6 ■ ~
I
ca- -
n
J_-J
71
i
v V J
oil,
r
1J I
m
Z
N
R
i AE
Nt
J
D a 1, a Orl' D 'i~
F3 -
rn
i
1{ ~r
8
1i
N
J
m
1
/;f fl
a ~ .
N
f' 'Q
CD
C
Z
m
z
z
rn
r
D
m
n
0
Z
m
x
A
B
19
m
C'
m
=
N
Z
d
m 3 ca
9
m ~a
a $t
a
y -1
'
tt
rim' a 3o
~z
m
d
o
"
a
O r
S
C
a
o
E5 m
E
~ Z'
ry
~
0
C
Z
TJ
m
rn
r
G~
m
r
m
c
z
m
0
O
z
m
x
r.
O
m
Cl)
c
z
X
m
X
■
■
■
.
c
m
o
O
=
0
o
0
.
m
~
0
cr
-1
cc
o
<
o
o
-
0-
0-
0
CD
s
3
o
'
.
C
~
c
cc
CD
CD
0
C:
M
Q.
O
(n
0
CD
O
3
~
n
O'
un
CD
C
Z
C
m
X
C
r
G)
m
Ch
c
z
m
X
3
D
0
o
(n
o
11
o
=3
90
m
;31
3
D
~
n
C
;u
m
L
rn~
00
o
3
Air
OK
cn
cn
~
3
-u
cQ
m
CD
o
<
CD
i
0 <
n
-n
:2.
CD
a
-0
Q
CD
Cl)
cn
90
C Cl)
cn
N
0
U)
N
1
m
D
r
_C
r
r
D
G)
m
C)
m
z
m
U)
c
z
C
m
;v
r
~n
mJ
'V
V
r-Y
J
O
0
c
N
D ~3
c
n
(D
N
O
~ as v!: yam: i, ' ~ ~ T
law -,q
ozi
fo&v
Abbots Drro
26
t
4
_ga~f
`e9 ~~38
as?SS~
3 s n Q .
3 n L d C=
L
y
~ ~
n
y:
3'
S
•S ~
N
V J
0
O
O
Z
m
z
~
r
V
r
rn
n
■ ■
CD
X
X
O
`w
CD
(n
3
CD
CD
Cn
i
i
v,
T.
r
G7
m
Cl
c
z
m
I
I
■ ■
M
CD
~
n
flJ
C7
n
U)
n
CD
cn
O
11
3
_
o
~
CD
o
3
3
~
CD
-
3
cr
CD
CD
X
CD
CDn
CD
cCD
co
1
I
r- r
a
C
U)
-
CD
<
I
I
CD
CD
x-
-1
-
O
Q
M
O
-
n
fl?
<
A.
O
,
cD
(m
n
0
O
CD
~
0
CD
3
(n
77
~
cD
(
n
CD
CD
<
X
-
Q
O
cn
0
cr
a
CD
<
_ -
CD
-
i
o
CD
_
I
n
^T
Z
z
r.
m
Ch
z
m
X
U,
cQ
0
m
~
(D
3
<
-
D
C
=
CD
+
<
N
r
.
C
D
.
<
-
=
(D
g
o
cQ
3
cn
~
<
<
CD
(
~
~
-
D
(
Q
o
3
O
11
CD
3
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
OCD
3
3
m
n
m
m
D
r
O
~o
rn
D
z
c
m
D
r
r
r
O
m
Ch
c
z
m'
■ ■ ■ ■
Q) (D
0 (D C < CCDD O C O M ~
Q 0 :3 c * c c<
(n O c 0
CD U) c0 0
.
~ :
m m < c :3 (D
(n CD < ( 90 3 v
(D cn cD =3 (D c-
CD
c O < CD O
X
(D CD
n O N n. CD
CD (n n
CD ~ < O
O
-1 CD CD
r--#- O O CD CD M. O
CD
Cn
D
O
z
z
c
D
Z
D
r
■
Z
`CD
CD :E
0 0
c c
cn cn
(a
r~
L L.!
cn
CL
r~
CD
0
\.I
6
Y
(0
C:
Y
0
3
CD
CD
\A=
(c
CD
ll<
CD
0
CD
cn
0
_^I
i '
yf
cn
Y
t t
0i
t`
CD 0.
,F,^^
-h1
CD
CD .-t-
eft ~3 Vt
■
e-+
0
OL)
0
c~
■
2
c~
r-q-
1<
CD
U)
f-I-
CT
CD
i
07
0-
0(D
((D
iii
C7
O
z
n
r
C
Cn
O
z
y
0
d
0
0
r
r
z
d
c n
O
Z
r
~ y
cra
G~
0
lot
r
Attachment 6
Public Comments
2-5-08 through 3-31-08
Page 1 of 2
Catherine Morrow
From: Dennis Luke
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:36 PM
To: 'BobB'; Board
Cc: Catherine Morrow
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall Town Center Zoning Request
Thank you for your comments on the mall proposal. I am forwarding this to the Community Development
Department to be put into the record.
Dennis R. Luke
Deschutes County Commissioner
1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200
Bend, Oregon 97701
541-388-6568
dennisl@co.deschutes.or.us
From: BobB [mailto:rlbolin@sunrivertelecom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:20 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Town Center Zoning Request
Dear Commissioners Baney, Daly & Luke,
We have been full time residents of Sunriver for eight years. We fully support redevelopment of our Mall and
recognize it must have a residential component to be economically viable.
We are grateful to the Planning Commission for reducing the residential density and improving the parking
infrastructure, however, we believe anywhere near 500 residential units will irrevocably destroy the character of
Sunriver. Our water supply, sewer services, traffic, parking, bike paths, swimming pools, tennis courts and even
river traffic will all be seriously and negatively impacted.
We respectfully urge you to reduce the residential density to say, 12 or 13 units per acre, permitting 325-350
units total, assuming the sale of 6.2 acres owned by Sunriver Owners Association is approved.
One other point : Mr Goodman submitted a letter to the Planning Commission threatening that Silver Star would
neglect the Mall and let it deterorate if it didn't get the zoning it was requesting. I don't believe this is true for two
reasons
* Silver Star reportedly paid $26 million for the Mall. Would it make any economic
sense to neglect an investment of that size and let its value diminish ?
I (undersigned Robert) was a member of the SROA Board when Mr Goodman
first outlined Silver Star's plans for the Mall. At that time, he spoke in terms of
250-300 residential units.
believe that, if the permitted density is reduced to 12 or 13 units per acre, Silver Star will revert to its original
plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinion.
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
Robert & Carolyn Bolin
23 Oregon Loop (street)
18160 Cottonwood Road, PMB 739 (mailing)
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
2/6/2008
Page I of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10A1 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: PA-07-6 and TA-07-6 Silver star "revised" application, The Village at Sun rental
Attachments: AVG certification-. txt
From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [mailto:webweb@teleport.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:36 AM
To: board@co.deschutes.or.us
Cc: 'Save Sunriver'; infosroa@srowners.org; 'Merlyn & Linda Webster'
Subject: PA-07-6 and TA-07-6 Silver star "revised" application, The Village at Sun rental
To the Board of County Commissioners: Hello:
This 5unriver home owner would like to go on record that we are not in favor of this proposal.
It is merely a very high density residential development, in the middle of 5unriver, disguised as a fix to the
current mall miss-management. The original architects of 5unriver agree that this is not what was planned for 5unriver.
5unriver is considered to be built out and now is not the time to be changing the planned residential density that will just
over load the areas capital and recreation assets. There is no clear plan for evacuations or fire response or is it clear the
current water/sewer services will not be impacted and no studies, as is required by the states land use rules, have been
completed or made public.
The developer's revised application, submitted just this last week, 2-07-08, should be denied and sent back to the
Planning Commissions, who in my opinion got their vote right the first time. (Reject).
With this changed application the SR Community will need time to properly vet the developer's new proposal, and I believe
this is in keeping with the intent of the Citizens Involvement Program which is required by the State.
It is clear that SROA, which is completely out of control on this issue, has decided to support this poorly planned
proposal largely due to the increase in home owner dues that they hope to collect in years to come. Apparently they are
more interested in protecting the organization, SROA, all pretty much at the cost of the current owners livability and our
quality of life.
Even under the developers latest proposal the parking for the site will be a problem and I see where they are now
waffling on the underground parking requirements put forth by the planning commissioners as one of the conditions for
their 2"d vote which was in favor. Even after the planning commissioners 2nd vote, there where comments made by some of
the commissioners that the density was still too much for 5unriver. The high densities requested from the developers
should not be approved.
All along the developer said this was and all or nothing proposal and I can only hope that they stay true to their
words and given these imposed conditions do nothing. There is no emergency and the Board should not approve this
apparent end run around the normal planning process.
Many of the zone changes proposed in the plan appears to be in contention with the overriding Land Use Rules
provided by the State. In my opinion LCDC's, OAR 660 Division 22 will have to have a say on these out of specification
zone changes trying to be imposed on our Urban Unincorporated Community.
As a 20 plus year owner and tax payer I suggest that the County Commissioners reject this proposal due to the
density requested and the non-positive change it will bring to 5unriver.
Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA)
webweb@teleport.com
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Craig Carver [c@candcprop.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:49 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne; flying dutchman; Don & Marcey Hutchison; hbarragar@aol.com; sos@sunrivertelecom.com;
suzy@bak.rr.com
Subject: Pa o7-6 and Ta 07-6, Sunriver Text amendments
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As you may be aware you will soon be asked to amend the Urban Plan for Sunriver. The proposal includes dramatic
departures from the existing uses and densities. We, the property owners in Sunriver, have never been afforded the opportunity to
vote on the project by our disconnected Board of Directors. We were however, recently asked to vote on the sale of 6 acres of our
common area (located within the boundaries of the amendment area) to the developer who is sponsoring the text amendments. In
my opinion, the ballot was as much about the development concept as the sale. The ballot measure to sell the property was
defeated!
You will be told by our Board of Directors that they represent the owners in Sunriver. The vote is evidence that nearly half
of the owners are against the ridiculous density proposal, height limits and lack of open space in the proposed amendments. We
are not represented by our board. Our board has failed to exercise its fiduciary responsibility to the owners in Sunriver.
The application is flawed in relationship to Oregon state law on several fronts. Two of these are a glaring lack of a
comprehensive traffic study and a recreational facilities study. At the very core of Sunriver's value to my family is the vast array of
recreational opportunities. The owners as well as the Board of Directors are painfully aware of the admittedly strained recreational
facilities and yet this proposal is vacant of any information about mitigating the impacts due to a 10% increase in density. The
same comment applies to traffic. Imagine a developer moving next to your home and proposing 500 apartments and 100,000 Sq.
Ft. of commercial on 21 acres without an area traffic study and mitigation plan. The Planning Commission approval is a mystery to
me relative to the total disregard for our basic planning objectives.
We ask that the County Commissioners stop this poorly documented attempt to put Portland in the Sunriver mall. We are
prepared to appeal and litigate as necessary to protect our quality of life.
Sincerely,
CRAIG CARVER
C&C PROPERTIES, INC.
# 7 Goldfinch
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
661-334-1300
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message contains
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company
cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
/25/2008
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tom Anderson
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:11 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Silver Star Zoning Proposal
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:28 PM
To: 'Roger Smith'
Cc: Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Silver Star Zoning Proposal
Hi Roger and Patty-
Thank you for taking the time to share you concerns. You are right, the Sunriver community has been very involved with this
issue. That involvement helps to guide the direction for a community and I am pleased so many are letting their voice be heard. I
will forward your comments to our Community Development Dept. so that they will be added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TnwtvK~ (-Fnneu) Meltoo,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Roger Smith [mailto:mandrgames@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:10 PM
To: Tammy Baney
Subject: Silver Star Zoning Proposal
Tommy,
I ask that you decline the Silver Star Zoning proposal for the expansion of the 5unriver Village Mall. We
agreed with the Planning Commissions January 10th vote of 4-3 to decline the proposal with no changes to the
application. Then a reduced version was introduced by Commissioner Pace and a 6-1 in favor was approved.
5ilverstar, had said after the approved vote that this would have unintended consequences.
5ilverstar has never been upfront with their proposals and have kept changing their plans ever since they
pcquired the Mall. But they have created thisgone thought that it will be a "Vibrant Village"...without letting
Jnyone know what that really means. Lets be -ery honest, 5ilverstar does not really care about the Village
they just want to build a huge amount of Condo's and then get out.
As I hope you have heard one of the principals of 5ilverstar has a dubious background at best in his commercial
jealings.
,III U L-l the 5unr iver 0/wners voted against the sale of the additional acreage to 5ilverstar by a 56% yes to
Page 2 of 2
44% No vote. SROA required a 60% YES vote to approve the sale. (We believe, according the Oregon Law that
a 80% Yes would have been required ...but it did not pass anyway.) This was the largest voter turnout in
recorded 5unriver history, so it shows the passion that everyone had for this ballot measure.
Again we implore you to decline the proposal as we do not need this HIGH density in 5unriver. Let 51lverstar go
to Portland or elsewhere where these high rise units are more tolerated. Help us keep 5unriver the quiet and
wonderful place people enjoy coming to year after year.
Roger and Patty Smith
PO Box 3236
5unriver, OR 97707
541-593-1756
A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
?/25/2008
Pagel of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Monday, February 25, 2008 9:50 AM
To:
'Edward LAVERY'
Cc: Dennis Luke; Mike Daly; Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE:
Hi Edward-
Thank you for your email; I appreciate your input very much. I have copied your email to our Community Development
Department so that it can be added to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tnvwv~tU (_F i2Vuei) Me[tovu
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Edward LAVERY [mailto:odanuki-san@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 8:28 AM
To: Tammy Baney
Subject:
The results of the special election prove a very large group of homeowners do not support the current
proposal in spite of what the SROA Board had repeatedly told the Deschutes County Planning Commission.
There are also a number of other items I feel are important that were not addressed by the Planning
Commission during their deliberations before your final vote to support the application. The initial vote
was 4 to 3 to deny the application before the addition of some fairly minor conditions. The items Ifeel are
very important that were not taken into consideration are:
. Traffic
. Parking
. Recreational Facilities
. Environmental Impacts (loss of trees and air quality)
. Building Heights
. Fire Safety and Evacuation
. View Protection - The requested exemption from existing county code and its impact
. Limited Building Setbacks (as little as 10 feet for a 30 fpot building - and that 10 feet has to
accommodate drainage, any berms or plantings and a bike path)
• The inclusion of a multi-story parking structure (up to 45 feet is allowed under the current proposal)
In addition the condition related to total residential density will not create a significant change - just a
15% reduction from an extremely high density, not seen outside of an,, ! rban Cr no.th v& Boundary in
2/25/2008
Page 2 of 2
Deschutes County. No one in their letters or testimony in opposition, not to mention the over 1,400
homeowners who voted in opposition to the land sale to SilverStar, stated that the current proposal was
just 15% too high. I strongly believe that a more meaningful reduction in the total density is what is most
appropriate and ultimately beneficial for all involved, and is most in keeping with the values of Sunriver. It
must still be remembered that no one moved to Sunriver for the "vibrant" shopping experience but rather
for the peaceful serenity and opportunity to enjoy nature that has been respected and preserved as the
very foundation of our community. This is not to say that the mall could not benefit from an upgrade, but
it should not be at the expense of what has made Sunriver such a treasure.
Edward Lavery 6 Squirrel Lane, Sunriver 97707 541-593-6015
/25/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 8:30 PM
To: 'John Liel'
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver mall proposal
Hi John-
Thank you for your email; I appreciate you sharing your concerns. I will forward your
comments to our Community Development Director so that they can be added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: John Liel [mailto:john.liel@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:42 PM
To: Tammy Baney
Subject: Sunriver mall proposal
Ms. Baney,
We have been Sunriver property owners for 15 years. We did not buy in Sunriver to have
small city dumped in the mall area. While we would support mall redevelopment with a much
lower impact, we would rather have nothing done to the mall area than see the Silver Star
proposal go forward. We urge you to reject Silver Star's proposal as it stands.
Thank you,
John and Harriet Liel
1
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tom Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:59 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: sunriver towncenter
From: Mike Daly
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:56 AM
To: Tom Anderson
Subject: FW: sunriver towncenter
Michael M. Daly
Deschutes County Commissioner
1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200
Bend, Or. 97701
541-388-6569
Cell 541-948-7591
Fax 541-385-3202
From: scott bouhaben [mailto:sbouhaben@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 8:54 PM
To: Mike Daly
Subject: sunriver towncenter
To Mike Daly,
I feel the size, density, and height are not within the original vision of the founders of Sunriver. Therefore, I am not in favor of
the original plans proposed by Silverstar or the scaled down plan recommendations. I feel the density is still too high for this
property and will alter negatively the Sunriver community. "A community where nature and man can coexist".
Thank you
Scott Bouhaben
SunriverHomeowner
Veed to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail@-get your "fix". Check it out.
!/26/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: jodipug@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:34 AM
To: Board
Subject: FW: Sunriver Mall Development
Forwarded Message:
From: jodipug@comcast.net
To:
mikeda@co.deschutes.or.us,tammy_baney@co.deschutes.or.us,dennis_luke@co.deschutes.or.us
Cc: info@savesunriver.org
Subject: Sunriver Mall Development
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:35:26 +0000
> Dear County Commissioners,
> I am a homeowner in Sunriver, Oregon. I am writing to voice my
> concerns over the proposed SilverStar Develpment in Sunriver. The
> recent vote to reject the sale of common land to SilverStar shows that
> the majority of homeowners are against this large, malltroplis-like
> project. (note: SilverStar's phone survey suppossidly got 95% in
> favor of the development--highly inaccurate, the vote was 55% in
> favor) I do agree the Mall needs updating but not at the cost of the
> entire atmosphere and original plan for Sunriver. I bought a house in Sunriver because
I love the quiet, small-town, wooded feel that Sunriver offers.
> I would ask you to seriously take into account the effect that the
> very tall, dense buildings will have on the atmosphere of Sunriver.
> Also, please reconsider the 15% reduction proposal on the housing
> density in the Mall, this is way too low . I think even 250 units is
> plenty when you consider the extra traffic, parking and population at
> peak times in Sunriver. Let's not turn Sunriver into something it was
> never meant to be. I believe most Sunriver property owners are in
> favor of keeping the small-town, relaxed, low-profile feeling that is
> now found in beautiful Sunriver.
It seems obvious that SilverStar is mainly interested in putting in as many units as
possible and as little retail space as they can get away with to maximize their long-term
profits. There does not seem to be any concern on the part of SilverStar to keep Sunriver
beautiful, livable and uncrowded. We are counting on the County Board to keep our best
interests in mind and to realize that the Sun River Owner's Association seems to be
selling us owners down the river...
> thank you for listening. Jodi Fechner-- 11 Quartz Mt. Lane
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tom Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:21 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: TA-07-6,PA-07-6
From: Mike Daly
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:16 PM
To: 'David Hansen'
Cc: Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6
Dear David and Marsha,
Thank you for your letter. I will see that it is put into the record.
Michael M. Daly
Deschutes County Commissioner
1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200
Bend, Or. 97701
541-388-6569
Cell 541-948-7591
Fax 541-385-3202
From: David Hansen [mailto:dhansen@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:37 AM
To: Mike Daly
Subject: TA-07-6,PA-07-6
Dear Commissioner Daly:
My name is David Hansen and my wife and I are full time residents of Sunriver at 8 Hickory Lane. We are writing to respectfully
request the Board to DENY the request by SilverStar L.L.C. to change Sunriver's zoning to a Town Center District file ref; TA-07-
6, PA-07-6. I attended the Planning Commission meeting where it was their recommendation to allow the the re-zoning with
changes. We believe that that process was flawed due to;
l .Confli ct of interest of a commission member who was the chief proponent of approving the request.
23 he commission member attending via teleconferencing voted no then changed her vote to yes under questioning.
Further, we do not believe that Deschutes County intended Sunriver to be the repository for possibly the tallest building east of the
Cascades when Sunriver was zoned.
Key phrase. Sub 3. Development shall take into consideration the unique physical features of the community and be
sensitive to the residential development within which the community areas are interspersed. From page 39 of D
CC 23.40
Also, we believe that the proposed re-districting goes against the original developers intent as well as Deschutes County original
ntent as evidenced by;
N key phrase from Deschutes County Code 23.40, page 32 is, "With the help of a stakeholder advisory committee
2/26/2008
Page 2 of 2
comprised of key members of the community who represent a multitude of property owners and development interests,
the decision was made to proceed with the planning process for Sunriver as an Urban Unincorporated Community. It
was the consensus of the committee that the provisions allotted for Urban Unincorporated Communities under the
rule offered the greatest practical degree of flexibility for future growth and development in Sunriver. "
While this particular citation may not accurately be applied to the commercial zone of the Village, it none the less did take into
consideration the future development issues at the time and the vision of Sunriver. Sunriver is not a Retail Destination nor should
it be a high density urban area.
In staffs recommendation to you following the last public Planning Commission meeting, staff cited as a positive that a new
turnaround will be constructed by the Sunriver Owners Association improving ingress and egress to the area which would be
helpful in case of fire or other emergencies. Since the Land Sale Ballot was defeated by the owners of Sunriver, this roundabout
will not be constructed and therefore this part of staffs recommendation should be amended. Also, staff cited a need for overnight
lodging and that Sunriver's location made it suited for such a need. Overnight lodging is already provided by Sunriver Lodge and
it is our belief that capacity is sufficient. It is inconceivable that any new single night lodging would attract any new business from
north south travelers who couldn't make it from Bend to La Pine or vice versa.
Lastly, it is our belief that part of the testimony in support for the re-districting from Sunriver Owners Association states
"overwhelming support" for SilverStar's plan. According to the results of the ballot that FAILED February 15th, there is NOT
overwhelming support to turn our community into high density urban area for the sake of some possibly upgraded retail shopping
opportunities.
Please consider the above in your deliberations and DENY the proposed re-districting so that our community will be maintained as
Deschutes County and the developers originally envisioned.
Thank You,
David and Marsha Hansen
8 Hickory Lane
2/26/2008
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: JHasl00295@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:47 AM
To: Mike Daly; tammy_barney@co.deschutes.or.us; Dennis Luke
Subject: Work Session Feb 27 on Sunriver Town Center
As permanent full time residents of Sunriver for over 7 years, we have taken an ongoing interest in the developments of the
Town Center District as proposed by SilverStar Destinations, to be called "Village At Sunriver". This has included attending
several meetings, writing to the Planning Commission and reviewing all the letters/comments presented to the Planning
Commission. We were opposed to the sale of our common land to SilverStar, as that was the only avenue we had currently
available to set some limits on the density proposed by SilverStar. We are not opposed to a Town Center concept, but are
opposed to the size, density and the impact the scale would have on our community.
In that light, we have reviewed the agenda for your work session planned for Feb 27. Most specifically, two articles have
several items/comments that are of concern to us.
1) APPLICANT LETTER DATED FEB 6 from John Goodman in behalf of SilverStar Destinations:
- The concept of the "resort village" is based on resorts at Whistler, Squaw Valley, Northstar, Keystone, Copper Mountain,
Tamarack and Winter Park. These are resorts at the foot of mountains which have direct ski lift access at the base of the
village. This allows for visitors to directly assess skiing and summer mountain experiences without driving. The proposed
Village At Sunriver would NOT
have such mountain access thus requiring d raving many cars to go skiing or for other activities,
increasing traffic and pollution.
- The explanation for the justification for reduced parking is just not viable. If some 500 housing units are developed, that would
greatly increase parking needs. From our experience, most families do not car pool. He also says families staying on the
outskirts of the Village "would be within walking distance of the commercial spaces". Most houses/condos on the rental market
are a considerable distance from the proposed development, up to three miles away.
- When the Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Town Center District Plan, they placed several
conditions. Mr. Goodman, in his letter of Feb 6, seems to now be trying to get out of those conditions. He is again requesting
that the commercial space be reduced from 120,000 square feet (as is the amount currently in Sunriver and was the condition
of the Planning Commission) to 85,000 sq ft. He is again basing this on other resorts next to mountain areas. The Village At
Mammoth is in a town, which has many other shopping malls, thus probably could not support anything larger. Of interest is a
letter, dated Dec 26, 2007, written by homeowners Al and Dottie Meilink about the negative impact of the village development in
Mammoth. The Village At Squaw has another shopping mall (the original Olympic Village) as well as the one built by Intrawest,
so could not support a larger second mall. Tamarack Village was under construction when we were there last spring and has
two or three ski runs that go directly into their proposed village. Keystone likewise is at the base of a ski area, and has a town
there with other shopping.
- He is trying to skirt the Planning Commissions condition of reducing the total units to 500. It appears he wants to get approval
for his Town Center but delay committing to how many units he plans to build. That has been one of the major issues with many
homeowners. As the sale of 6.2 acres of Sunriver common area has failed, it would be good if homeowners could view a
revised plan for SilverStar's development.
- He also states that SilverStar Destinations is "owned and managed by Oregonians who are either homeowners, residents
and/or vacationed in Central Oregon for many years". To date, although we have asked, we have never been supplied the
names of any owners except one, who has had several lawsuits filed against his organization.
2) Agenda Item marked "FINDINGS" (not clear who wrote these findings)
APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT:
Statewide Planning Goals
- Goal 1: Citizen Involvement - most homeowners were never involved in the early planning as it was started back in 2006 with
board members and a select group. Homeowners were not involved and allowed comment until late 2007.
- Goal 5: Protect Resources-and Open Spaces - the proposed plan appears to actually reduce open spaces, and those
identified are mostly asphalt roads, a parking garage and paved courtyards.
- Goal 6: Air, Water and Land - the Commission is referred to the letter on file, dated June 20, 2007, from Sunriver Water
LLC/Environmental LLC, the company that serves Sunriver. They clearly stated that they do not have the capacity to serve this
proposed new development without significant expansion. This proposed development also sits in a wildfire area, and adding up
to housing 500 units in a densely compacted area has to be a significant risk in evacuation and firefighting, both a forest fire and
a high rise hotel fire. There is a letter on file from the Sunriver Service District Fire Department, dated June 19, 2007, that
addresses these concerns. We are unaware if updated/changed letters have been submitted. The new roundabout to facilitate
evacuation is NOT a given.
- Goal 8: Recreational Needs - very unclear how this proposal would not result in excessive demand for the use of Sunriver's
2/28/2008
Page 2 of 2
recreational facilities. Just the opposite. This development would create an overflow of visitors on the bike paths, marina,
stables, tennis courts, etc.
- Goal 11: Public Facilities - if some 500 units are added to the sewer, water, streets and bike path systems, how could this not
result in excessive demand?? Seems to us that this would create considerably more demand on already taxed systems.
Goal 12: Transportation - the applicant "recognizes that transportation systems improvements may be needed-" and is working
with the County and ODOT. What about the owners? and the Board?
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources - we do have several designated WET LANDS in Sunriver, which surely will be impacted by
visitors/owners of the proposed additional 500 housing units.
Oregon Administrative Rules:
Really got lost here what with all the sections and subsections!. In our opinion, this proposal is not "small scale, low density",
especially in the Sunriver community as it exists now. The uses of this proposal are NOT "comparable in intensity to the uses
currently in existence" as stated in these findings. Health hazards/pollution and traffic/parking problems will be created by many
more cars and people. Adverse environmental impact would be caused by cutting down of many trees (we are a designated
Tree City) and hundreds of more people in the community, using our facilities, the surrounding forest land, and the waterways.
Summary:
You have a difficult task - to be sure you weight carefully the concerns of many of the homeowners in Sunriver vs the emphasis
for more development, tax revenues, etc. Hopefully you will consider the desire of many of us to modify the density of this
proposal to help mitigate the tremendous impact it would have on our community and our environment.
Thank you for reading our concerns and comments.
Terry Kirk and Jack Haskell
# 3 Gosling Lane
Sunriver
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living_
2/28/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:44 PM
To: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Input Concerning the Sunriver Town Center Zoning Application
Attachments: 2- 27 input to Deschutes CC final.doc
For the record...
In Partnership,
Tnvvt,vu~ CRInvLeu) Mel,tovL
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: DSBJ@aol.com [mailto:DSBJ@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:53 PM
To: Board
Cc: info@savesunriver.org
Subject: Input Concerning the Sunriver Town Center Zoning Application
To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Please consider the attached input in your deliberations concerning the zoning waiver request for the proposed Sunriver Town
Center development. In addition, please include us on your mailing list and/or email list for announcements of meetings and
distributions of meeting minutes or other information concerning the Town Center Proposal. Should you have any questions or
other concerns, you may contact us at the follow address. Thank you for your consideration.
Dennis and Susan Kreid
1115 Pine St
Richland WA 99354
509 943 3922
email: dsbj aol.com
Owner - 13 Hare Lane, Sunriver
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
.'/27/2008
1115 Pine St
Richland WA, 99354
February 25, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St Suite 200
Bend OR 97701-1960
Re: Input for the planned Feb 27, 2008 County Commission Work Session on the
Sunriver Town Center proposal
Dear Commissioners:
My wife Susan and I have been Sunriver home owners since 2001 and were frequent
visitors to the Bend area for 20 or more years before that. We are deeply concerned with
and have been actively engaged in the hearings, meetings, and other discussions
concerning the Town Center development proposed for the area currently occupied by the
Sunriver Mall. We appreciate the extensive opportunities provided by the Deschutes
County Planning Commission to attend hearings and provide written and oral input on
this issue. We commend the Planning Commission for their openness and fairness and
the professional conduct of the hearings that led to the Planning Commission
recommendations on January 10, 2008.
We do not feel that the changes proposed by the Planning Commission went far enough,
but we respect the principal finding of the Planning Commission that the decision on the
Town Center proposal is essentially a policy decision. We feel, therefore, that it would
not be good policy for the Deschutes County Commission to approve the Town Center
proposal either in its original form or in the modified form recommended by the Planning
Commission. We believe approval of the requested zoning changes would be bad policy
because of the extreme impacts that implementation of those changes would have on the
environment, traffic, parking, congestion, and public safety.
No consensus has been reached in the community concerning what would constitute an
acceptable approach to achieving a viable business environment in the Sunriver Mall, as
evidenced by the fact that the proposed sale of SROA land (which was described as
essential to the viability of the Town Center Proposal) was defeated by the owners. In
addition, we understand that litigation has been initiated against SROA and the developer
that challenges certain elements of the Town Center proposal process. We submit
therefore, that a quick decision by the County Commission would not appear to be
appropriate at this time. In particular, we strongly object to the developers' proposal in a
letter to the Commission dated February 14, 2008, for "Emergency Adoption" of the
proposed zone changes.
The proposed Town Center project is a high-rise, high-density real estate development
dominated by towering buildings, paved roads and parking lots. The Town Center
proposal is unprecedented and totally inconsistent with the architectural and ecological
character that has been rigorously maintained in Sunriver since its inception almost 40
years ago. The unique rural and woodsy character of the Sunriver community was a
primary consideration when we chose to purchase property here, and we believe that
same attraction holds true for others interested in living in or visiting Sunriver. This
opinion is buttressed by the finding of a recent SROA poll that 99% of respondents said
they wanted Sunriver to remain essentially as it is now (2000 Sunriver Consolidated Plan,
Appendix E). The results of analysis reported by the Planning Commission in the
January 10, 2008 hearing revealed that the numbers of pro and con submissions and
presentations to the Commission were essentially the same. In addition, the recent
rejection by Sunriver owners of the proposed sale of SROA common land needed to fully
implement to the Town Center proposal is further confirmation that the community is not
comfortable with this proposal.
We also are very concerned that the precedent established by the Town Center proposal
would be used to push similar proposals by other real estate developers, with the
consequent further deterioration of the unique Sunriver environment. Although language
in the zoning waiver proposal states that the current waivers are intended only for the
Sunriver mall redevelopment, we submit that approval of the Town Center zoning
waivers could put substantial pressure on the Commission for extending the waivers to
other areas of Sunriver, and perhaps even more broadly to other resort communities in
Deschutes county.
Sunriver owners have been repeatedly assured that the zoning changes are just the first
step and that numerous opportunities for public input will be provided in subsequent
steps of the review and approval process which will resolve the remaining issues.
Unfortunately, in view of the past inflexibility of the developer to consider compromise
in any significant manner on their proposal, we are not confident that we as owners can
or will have a significant impact on the progress of this proposal once the zoning waivers
have been approved. We strongly feel, therefore, that the process for approval of the
zoning request should be slowly paced and deliberate pending resolution of the litigation
in process and allowing time for development of a consensus between the Sunriver
community and the developer on a more acceptable proposal that respects the integrity of
the special environment of Sunriver.
February 26, 2008
RE: Sunriver village mall zoning application
Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney,
As you know, on Feb 15, 2008 the offer to sell Sunriver community property to Silverstar
for their proposed village mall was defeated by Sunriver owners. This was an extremely high
turnout with a substantial portion of owners voicing their opposition not to proceed with the
land sale and the mall plan as proposed by Silverstar and the SROA board. This was done
despite the fact that the Deschutes County Planning Commission approved the proposal with
minor changes and lowering the density to 500 units.
Those who voted not to proceed know there are many issues that still have not been fully
addressed by the Deschutes County Planning Commission. The reduction in residential
density requested by the planning commission accounts for a total density of 500 units that
still DOES create a significant change in density in the fact that it is extremely concentrated.
This concentration forces major concessions for a resort in the county whereas normally this
type of high density development is planned for within a defined urban growth boundary:
- A possible 45' parking structure that "fits in" and is accepted in a city or urban downtown
but would be out of character and an eyesore in a forested outdoor resort community.
- Traffic congestion with hundreds of additional vehicles in a confined area and many
underground parking sites where concentrated exhaust will impact the air quality.
- Increased building heights required for this density impacts visual aspect in a forest setting
and requires exemption from existing county codes for view protection.
- The existing height requirements set forth in the original Sunriver consolidated plan had
purpose in providing increased fire safety and evacuation in a high hazard zone. It also
limited ambient light, provided view protection for residents, and blended structures into the
existing forest setting.
- The proposed building setbacks as little as 10' for landscape, paths and berms combined
between structures and roads/parking lots does not fit in a resort setting. It is an aesthetic,
safety and lifestyle issue for people that come to recreate.
Most believe the mall needs improvement, but creating a very high-density residential
development is not what many owners want for their community and would change the very
heart of Sunriver. Reducing the total residential density of the mall area to a level that would
allow for greater setbacks, lower building heights, more green space and eliminate an out of
place parking structure would go a long way in eliminating major issues.
Most all owners and visitors alike live and visit in Sunriver for its unique character of being
a resort community that preserves nature and its natural tranquility. We enjoy and recreate in
a setting that offers contrast from a high-density urban setting.
Larry and Lois Read,
Aspen Lane, Sunriver
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:46 PM
To: 'Richard Hansen'
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne; Dennis Luke; Mike Daly
Subject: RE: File No. PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
Hi Dick and Jean-
Thank you for sharing your comments and concerns. Please know that I am copying our Community Development Department
so that your email can be added to the public record.
In Partnership,
Ta wt. wt. (gG1 vt e~) M e [to vt,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Richard Hansen [mailto:dickhansen@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Tammy Baney
Subject: File No. PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
REF: File No. PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
We have been Sunriver homeowners since 1974 and OPPOSE the SilverStar proposed development of an
urban, high profile, high density "Town Center District" on the land currently comprising the Sunriver
Mall and the resultant requests for zoning changes.
The SilverStar proposal and requested zoning changes, quite simply, are inconsistent with the heritage and
long established vision for Sunriver. The proposed "Town Center" totally violates the original Sunriver
planning concept, and is in direct opposition with previous homeowner agreed upon operational and
planning documents such as the current SROA Mission Statement, CC&R's, Consolidated Plan, Long
Range Plan and strategic studies. And, as evidenced by the recent failure of the SROA proposed land sale
to SilverStar, a significant percentage of Sunriver homeowners are against such a radical change. The very
character and nature of Sunriver is at stake. We have previously paid a premium to live in and enjoy the
well thought out vision of Sunriver, and now must not forsake our long established and time proven
standards and values.
Further, the proposed zoning changes, if implemented will establish a significant negative precedent that
directly threatens retention of existing deeded common areas, such as the Meadow, parks, roadways,
pathways, and greenbelts that are so much a part of what makes Sunriver unique and special. The same re-
zoning that SilverStar is trying to get for development of a high profile, high density "Town Center" could
be further used to develop portions, or all, of our remaining common areas and may even threaten
encroachment of the river, golf courses, etc.
2/27/2008
Page 2 of 2
After reading and discussing all the issues, we strongly support the need to rehab the village mall, but
have serious concerns over the SilverStar/SROA Board "Town Center" development plan and resultant
effort to change current zoning provisions. In a nutshell, we think the SilverStar "cure" is worse than
the "disease". In addition, as again evidenced by the recent failure of the SROA Board proposed land
sales agreement, we feel that the SROA Board and their publicly stated positions have been unfairly
biased in their support of SilverStar, have not adequately represented Sunriver homeowners views,
opinions or desires, and therefore their position of support should not be viewed as representative of all
homeowners. We, and a significantly large number of homeowners, think we need to search for other
alternatives.
We urge you and the the Deschutes County Commission to respect, preserve and maintain what Sunriver
has long been noted for by maintaining the existing zoning regulations for Sunriver.
We therefore respectively request that the Deschutes County Commission deny the applications for plan
amendment PA-07-6 and text amendment TA-07-6.
Dick and Jean Hansen
John Hansen
3 Dora] Lane
Sunriver
2/27/2008
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: Bonnie Baker
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:36 AM -
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Sunriver Town Center Zoning Application
Attachments: Sunriver Town Center.pdf
Sunriver Town
Center.pdf (60 K...
-----Original Message-----
From: William Pennell [mailto:bill@craea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:18 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Town Center Zoning Application
Dear Commissioners,
Please consider the attached input during your considerations of the Sunriver Town Center
zoning applications.
Respectfully submitted,
William T. Pennell
7420 Ricky Road
Pasco, WA 99301
(Sunriver address: 13 Elk Lane)
Phone: 509-542-0644
Fax: 509-542-8295
e-mail: bill@craea.com
Terri Hansen Payne
From: William Pennell [bill@craea.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:43 PM
To: Board
Subject: Letter Regarding Sunriver Town Center Zoning Proposal
Attachments: Sunriver Town Center.pdf
~k
Sunriver Town
Center.pdf (60 K...
Dear Commissioners,
I sent the attached letter regarding the Sunriver zoning proposal Tuesday evening
(February 26). Since I haved not receive conformation of the receipt of the letter, I am
sending it again to make sure that it was delivered.
Very truly yours,
William Pennell
William T. Pennell
7420 Ricky Road
Pasco, Washington 99301
February 25, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St Suite 200
Bend OR 97701-1960
Re: County Commission Work Session on the Sunriver Town Center proposal
Dear Commissioners:
I have been a Sunriver property owner for over 18 years, and I have owned my current
house at 13 Elk Lane for nearly 14 years. I respectfully request that you reject the
proposed zoning changes for the Sunriver Town Center and, at least, return this proposal
to the Planning Commission for further consideration. One clear reason for doing so is
that rejection of the land sale by Sunriver property owners has rendered SilverStar's
conceptional design moot. Another reason is the possibility of a perceived or actual
conflict of interest on the part of Planning Commissioner Otteni with regards to this
matter. The final reason is failure to address adequately numerous concerns about the
impacts of the proposed Town Center development that were brought to the attention of
the Planning Commission by residents and property owners. These concerns include, but
are not limited to,
• Increased traffic congestion.
• Inadequate parking.
• The impact of a development of this magnitude on the ability to safely evacuate
the southern portion of Sunriver in case of a fire emergency.
• Environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on air quality in the immediate
neighborhood of the development (see my January 3 submission to the Planning
Commission on this matter)
• Establishment of a zone of residential density exceeding anything outside an
urban growth boundary in Deschutes County and completely inconsistent with
Sunriver's historic emphasis on development that is compatible with its
surroundings.
Although these concerns are shared by a large number of owners throughout Sunriver, the
adverse impacts of the proposed Town Center development are disproportionately borne
by those who live or own property in the immediate vicinity. To date, our interests have
been largely ignored or trivialized by both SilverStar and the Owners Association. I hope
you will take these concerns and interests into account as you make your decision.
Very truly yours,
William T. Pennell
Message Pagel of 5
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Ruth Jenkins [rej1@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:47 AM
To: info@savesunriver.org; Terri Hansen Payne; info@villageatsunriver.com
Subject: FW: Housing - article in the March Atlantic Monthly
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The article below is an interesting look at the possibilities inherent in a redevelopment of the Sunriver mall. The vision of a
walkable village core that follows the original architect's vision (see Ted Smith's letter on SaveSunriver.org website) seems to be
the wave of the future. Sunriver Mall could be successfully restored to its original architect's vision, and find itself positioned to
meet the most contemporary of concepts.
I encourage the SilverStar, LLC to find areas of commonality with SaveSunriver.org, scale down the height and density of their
proposed development, increase the space allotted to small commercial venues, allow for adequate and adequately camoflaged
parking, and provide for the additional infrastructure (sewer, water, fire, police, roads and recreation) their development will
require. Doing so may mean a slightly lower immediate profit, but long-term, such an approach will add luster to SilverStar's
name, produce quite an adequate profit, and leave a legacy for future generations.
Ruth Jenkins
Wildflower 56, Sunriver
Atlantic Monthly Article follows:
Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the
houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.
At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of
the community's 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors
and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In
December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son's bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who'd moved to
Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, "I thought I'd bought a home in Pleasantville. I
never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen."
In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at
Windy Ridge-many once sold for well over $500,000-but the phenomenon is the same. At the height of the boom,
10,000 new homes were built there in just four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others.
Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local
residents' association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, "There's been gang activity. Things
have really been changing, the last few years."
In the first half of last year, residential burglaries rose by 35 percent and robberies by 58 percent in suburban Lee
County, Florida, where one in four houses stands empty. Charlotte's crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent
years-but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime
rose 33 percent. Civic organizations in some suburbs have begun to mow the lawns around empty houses to keep up the
appearance of stability. Police departments are mapping foreclosures in an effort to identify emerging criminal hot
spots.
The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis,
with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities.
2/27/2008
Message
Page 2 of 5
But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will
not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market-a major shift in the way many Americans
want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities
and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its
ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American
demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing
supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were
bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by
2025-that's roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving
cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this
swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are
lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and '70s-slums characterized by
poverty, crime, and decay.
The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World's Fair of 1939 and '40. "Highways and Horizons," better
known as "Futurama," was overwhelmingly the fair's most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American
population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that
showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide
highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with
spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B.
White wrote in Harpers, "A ride on the Futurama induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip
through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine I didn't want to wake up."
The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first
people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families
decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-
thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots.
By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the
suburbs. In 1981, Escape >From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been
abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.
Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New
York, Se infeld-fol lowed by Friends, then Sex and the City-began advertising the city's renewed urban allure to Gen-
Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes
characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often
looks to the suburbs-as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest-for inspiration.
In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta's sprawl
has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the
10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to
sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror
opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from
work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement,
freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.
Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most
-entral cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes
For 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland,
Dregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.
2/27/2008
Message
Page 3 of 5
It's crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have
walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family
homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in
downtown White Plains, the county's biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be
seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable
urban neighborhoods across the country-even when those neighborhoods are small.
Builders and developers tend to notice big price imbalances, and they are working to accommodate demand for urban
living. New lofts and condo complexes have popped up all over many big cities. Suburban towns built in the 19th and
early 20th centuries, featuring downtown street grids at their core, have seen a good deal of "in-filling" in recent years
as well, with new condos and town houses, and renovated small-lot homes just outside their downtowns. And while
urban construction may slow for a time because of the present housing bust, it will surely continue. Sprawling, large-lot
suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas-especially those well served by
public transit-become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively,
and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries.
But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs-and provide an alternative to
conventional, car-based suburban life. "Lifestyle centers"-walkable developments that create an urban feel, even
when built in previously undeveloped places-are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets
and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden
underground or in the interior of faux city blocks.
The granddaddy of all lifestyle centers is the Reston Town Center, located between Virginia's Dulles International
Airport and Washington, D.C. Since it opened in 1990, it has become the "downtown" for western Fairfax and eastern
Loudoun counties; a place for the kids to see Santa and for teenagers to ice skate. People living in the town can stroll
from the movie theater to restaurants and then back home. A 2006 study by the Brookings Institution showed that
Reston's apartments, condominiums, and office and retail space were all commanding about a 50 percent rent or price
premium over the typically suburban houses, office parks, and strip malls nearby.
Housing at Belmar, the new "downtown" in Lakewood, Colorado, a middle-income inner suburb of Denver, commands
a 60 percent premium per square foot over the single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it. The development
covers about 20 small blocks in all. What's most noteworthy is its history: it was built on the site of a razed mall.
Building lifestyle centers is far more complex than building McMansion developments (or malls). These new, faux-
urban centers have many moving parts, and they need to achieve critical mass quickly to attract buyers and retailers. As
a result, during the 1990s, lifestyle centers spread slowly. But real-estate developers are gaining more experience with
this sort of building, and it is proliferating. Very few, if any, regional malls are being built these days-lifestyle centers
are going up instead.
In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places (including
places like downtown White Plains and Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of
Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners
would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than
1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban
amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts).
All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles,
featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in
mixed-use, walkable urban areas-but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-
urban building continues, that will change.
Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to
further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children
made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be
closer to a (171 Young eonle are starting families er slier e ei
e. -carte.. ng p r re rting lat ea g r..at...ns u1 , arlu 1lavmg ewer children. 111 T11e
Message Page 4 of 5
Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the
U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.
Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number-according to U.S.
Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more
than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.
If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future.
And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of
the suburbs' other big advantages-better schools and safer communities-have eroded. Schooling and safety are
likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base-
often highly dependent on house values and new development-deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is
expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.
The U.S. grows its total stock of housing and commercial space by, at most, 3 percent each year, so the imbalance
between the supply of urban living options and the demand for them is not going to disappear overnight. But over the
next 20 years, developers will likely produce many, many millions of new and newly renovated town houses, condos,
and small-lot houses in and around both new and traditional downtowns.
As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will happen to
obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or McMansion
developments being bulldozed and reforested or turned into parks. But these sorts of transformations are likely to be
rare. Suburbia's many small parcels of land, held by different owners with different motivations, make the purchase of
whole neighborhoods almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family housing for "higher and better use" is
politically difficult, and in most states it has become almost legally impossible in recent years. In any case, the
infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas-roads, sewer and water lines---cannot support the dense
development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential
landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild.
The experience of cities during the 1950s through the '80s suggests that the fate of many single-family homes on the
metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families-and in all likelihood, eventual
conversion to apartments.
This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their
decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being
broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-
end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-
plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that
holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built
houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall-their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the
houses up.
As the residents of inner-city neighborhoods did before them, suburban homeowners will surely try to prevent the
Jivision of neighborhood houses into rental units, which would herald the arrival of the poor. And many will likely
succeed, for a time. But eventually, the owners of these fringe houses will have to sell to someone, and they're not
ikely to find many buyers; offers from would-be landlords will start to look better, and neighborhood restrictions will
-elax. Stopping a fundamental market shift by legislation or regulation is generally impossible.
)f course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities-especially
hose along rail lines-are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban
-ore, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family
comes next to the downtowns of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan, for example,
re likely to hold their values just fine.
'./27/2008
Message
Page 5 of 5
On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are
already suffering what looks like inexorable decline. Low-income people, displaced from gentrifying inner cities, have
moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out.
But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by
rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the
country's more recently developed areas-and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of
these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.
Despite this glum forecast for many swaths of suburbia, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture-the shift that's
under way toward walkable urban living is a healthy development. In the most literal sense, it may lead to better
personal health and a slimmer population. The environment, of course, will also benefit: if New York City were its own
state, it would be the most energy-efficient state in the union; most Manhattanites not only walk or take public transit to
get around, they unintentionally share heat with their upstairs neighbors.
Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I
doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century;
many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost
certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities-allowing people in most areas a wider
variety of choices.
By the estimate of Virginia Tech's Arthur Nelson, as much as half of all real-estate development on the ground in 2025
will not have existed in 2000. It's exciting to imagine what the country will look like then. Building and residential
migration seem to progress slowly from year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the landscape seems to have been
transformed in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the ones before it, will leave some
places diminished. About 25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or
three decades from now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in Escape From the Suburban Fringe.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime.
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Peg & Joe Upton [peg.joe@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:40 PM
To: Board
Subject: FW: Concerns about Sunriver Development
Sorry if this is a repeat. We just got the address change. Thanks,
Uptons
From: Peg & Joe Upton [ma ilto: peg Joe@verizon. net]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:43 AM
To: 'mikeda@co.deschutes.or.us'; Tammy_Baney@co.deschutes.or.us'; 'Dennis-Luke@co.deschutes.or.us';
'infosroa@srowners.org'; 'billp@srowners.org'
Cc: 'Save Sunriver'
Subject: Concerns about Sunriver Development
Mike Daly, Chair, 541-388-6568: Tammy Baney, 541-388-6567:
Denis Luke, 541-388-6569
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners and SROA:
I am writing as an owner of property in Sunriver and as President of the Board of the Wildflower I Owners Association. My wife
and I have been owners in Sunriver for over 20 years.
We became Sunriver devotees in order to have a family retreat with the feeling of "a cabin in the Oregon woods" with the
amenities of skiing, golfing, etc. We also hoped that our investment would not lose financial value. We felt these were protected
by homeowners rules and county ordinances. It seems clear that the SilverStar development will change all of that. We have the
following concerns about the proposed development in Sunriver.
Density is much too high. This overdeveloped village is not what the Sunriver resort (or Oregon resorts in general) stands for.
We, and all visitors, love Sunriver for its natural beauty and open scenery. This will be lost with the present proposed high-
density development.
Height of buildings & zone changes. We must not permit changes such as these, which will impact Sunriver views and
property values in incalculable ways. This opens up precedents which (in fairness) will apply to all Oregon resorts.
Parking will be a nightmare. Hotel guests, high-rise condo owners, and shoppers will fight for places to park. A huge multi-
story parking garage should not be allowed, as it will be an eyesore and contribute to the congestion.
Traffic will be congested and impossible to navigate.
Don't allow hotels and motels in the village. Again, density, parking, and the associated problems.
Environment will be impacted by loss of trees, concrete/asphalt covering huge areas, air quality deteriorating because of
vehicles and mechanization.
Adequate Police and fire protection are unclear and perhaps impossible; who is responsible for what and when, etc.?? It is
frightening to consider long-term effects of dense buildings, etc. on safety and evacuation efforts in an emergency.
Need to plan for bike paths, recreation areas, walking areas, drainage, ingress and egress, etc.
Long-term impact on surrounding areas and the entire Sunriver resort will be major, changing the new area to a self-
contained "city."
Let's update the mall area, but do it right. Create open spaces, ice skating arena, shopping, grocery stores, restaurants, walking
and sitting areas, places where people can gather to have fun and enjoy the relaxing atmosphere. What do people come to
Sunriver for? They do not come to repeat their experiences of big-city malls, crowds, smog, and cumbersome traffic.
Joe Upton, President Wildflower I Owners Association
Peggy Upton, Owner Wildflower 14
Peg.joe@verizon.net
425-316-9418
2/28/2008
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: Richard Felley [rfelley@nehalemtel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:53 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Town Center District
Dear Commissioners,
As homeowners in Sunriver we are writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning as
proposed.
Our primary concern is that the County Commission may have been deceived and misled by the
developer and the SROA Board that Sunriver homeowners are in majority support of this
approach to rejuvenating the "mall" area.
Secondarily, we are concerned that if the County Commission supports this rezoning
proposal, that arguments in favor of critical infrastructure such as traffic flow and fire
protection have not been adequately analyzed.
The basic premise upon which Sunriver was originally founded was one of blending with
nature. Please help preserve this truly unique attraction to Deschutes County and do not
let it become yet another profit-motivated strip mall complex with few redeeming qualities
as proposed by the current developer and the SROA Board. Please make your mark in local
history by resisting the pressure to approve until a fair and adequate proposal is
submitted.
Sincerely,
Richard & Lydia Felley
30 year visitors and recent homeowners
i
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: Jacqueline Bourdette [Jackie@ipns.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:39 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Zone Change
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners,
We are writing to express our view that the zoning change presented by SilverStar
would be detrimental to Sunriver.
The town center proposed by this developer is not consistent with Sunriver's values
of clean air, natural beauty, and environmental stewardship. The effect on Sunriver's
infrastructure would be overwhelming. Traffic, fire, police, and water systems would all
be negatively affected.
The SROA (Sunriver Owner's Association) has been bombarding us with pro-SilverStar
propaganda, after they made agreements with SilverStar without any direct input from the
homeowners.
The SROA Board has decided to push for SilverStar's project and has been giving you
the impression that the people of Sunriver support it. This is false. The recent
rejection by voters of SilverStar's attempt to acquire some of our common area show that
this is true.
Please help us to save Sunriver for future generations to enjoy.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. Dennis Bourdette
Dr. Jacqueline Bourdette
Sunriver Homeowners
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Margaret Lachner [mlachner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:52 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Zoning Change
I have been a Sunriver resident for 20 years. I value Sunriver so much that I have provided that my home there should
be passed down to my daughter and future heirs in perpetuity. I have been privileged to see most of the world. I know
what Sunriver has now is very rare. I have been to the meetings where Silver Star represented by Mr. Goodman called
the village crap, wish it had all burned down, etc.
The number of condominiums Silver Star wants to build where the village now stands is excessive. I am on the bike
trails everyday in the summer. Last summer I stopped my wonderful bike ride in August as it is just not safe with the
crowds: children darting in front of bike, etc. The 2 owner pools now are definitely overcrowded every summer. The
occupants of 500 or so condos who expect to use our facilities would overburden those facilities. I don't see that Silver
Star is respecting the uniqueness of Sunriver. We have requirements here that we all respect concerning cars , height
requirements, etc. John Goodman has repeatedly talked about underground parking. I think he uses that word because
he knows the owners would revolt with the idea of a parking garage at the entrance to Sunriver. They also told us they
would abandon the project if they didn't get our 6 acres. We value our trees, open spaces, wildlife. I know they want to
make as much money as possible. The owners who support this think of it as they are going to have a new mall, new
shops, not the urban density that is inappropriately to be placed in the middle of Sunriver. I know a thing or two about
shopping. I didn't come to Sunriver for that experience. In the long run, the property values of Sunriver will stay high
if they do not compromise the integrity of Sunriver's original plan. Notice as the real estate values have declined in
Bend, they have risen in Sunriver. They are longer on the market but so far do not seem to be as vulnerable as the rest
of the country. I think that is because people see the harmony with nature and respect for the environment . They
would love to have a piece of it.
Sorry, for the length of this e-mail. I strongly oppose changing the zoning, height requirements, etc. in Sunriver.
Respectfully,
Margo Lachner
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: GEOWHIZZ@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:48 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver
We do not need the high density of condo's in the market plaza ...The goal was to give the retail area a boost ...not the
condos ...we were lied too,,,And the planning dept should look real hard at the density too..
Some of the subdivisions in Bend have housing too close ...are the developers lining some pockets?? Gary
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
2/28/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: scott bouhaben [sbouhaben@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:47 PM
To: Board
Subject: RE: sunriver towncenter
To the Planning Commission Board
I feel the size, density, and height are not within the original vision
or intent the founders of Sunriver envisioned. Therefore, I am not in favor
of the zoning change, the original plans proposed by Silverstar
Development or the scaled down plans the planning commission
recommended. I feel the density of the plan is not compatable for this
property and will have a negative long-term impact on the community. The
original planners and architects of Sunriver have written letters that are not
in favor of the zoning change, for they feel this development is also out of
character for this community. "A community where man and nature can
coexist"
Thank you,
Scott Bouhaben
SunriverHomeowner
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail@-get your "fix". Check it out.
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Bonnie Baker
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Fwd: Sunriver Town Center
From: Save Sunriver [mailto:info@savesunriver.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:59 PM
To: Board
Subject: FW: Fwd: Sunriver Town Center
Apparently I don't have the correct address for Baney and Luke. Could you please forward this email to them.
Thanks, Bruce MacCaul
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bruce MacCaul <bgmc2@cox.net>
Date: February 26, 2008 7:30:32 PM PST
To: mikeda .co.deschutes.or.us, Tamm Bane co.deschutes.or.us, DennisLuke(a)co.deschutes or us
Cc: Bruce MacCaul <bgmc2@cox.net>
Subject: Sunriver Town Center
We have lived in Sunriver for 8 years. Like most residents we would like to see the Village improved.
But, that doesnt mean that we want a massive residential development of the size that Silverstar is
proposing. It is out of character for Sunriver and violates the constructs of the original development. It
is a bigger development in terms of density than anything else in Deschutes County. Adding mixed use
residential to the village is OK but not in that quantity. I believe that the Sunriver Owners Association
Board in supporting the rezoning plan got hoodwinked by Silverstar. The failure of the Special Election
Vote demonstrates that a near majority of owners do not support this development in its current form.
Please deny the application of Silverstar and tell them to come back with a set of criteria that fits the
area.
Bruce and Marylouise MacCaul
2 Shamrock Lane
Sunriver
2/28/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jim Harnish [theharnishes@yahoo.comj
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:38 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Hello Ms. Commissioner,
Those of us who live full time in Sunriver realize how important it is to improve the Mall. The one or two weeks a year
don't have to live with it and rarely use it. WE MUST work with SilverStar and approve their project.
The disgraceful 30 year old run down mall must go..
Jim Harnish
#2 Muir
Sunriver
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: David Haring [davidharing@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:00 AM
To: Board
Cc: Karen Haring
Subject: Sunriver Village Mall
To the Deschutes County Commissioners, My name is David Haring. My family and I have been a visitor at
Sunriver since 1974. We have been homeowners in Sunriver since the 1980's. We have been full time residents
since 2000. We remember the fun and enjoyment of a vibrant and attractive Sunriver Village mall. That no
longer exists. Because of bad management, excessive rents, and poor maintenance the mall is in bad shape and
it is pretty much ignored. SilverStar's improvements to the area will bring back that enthusiasm. I feel it is very
important that these plans proceed. Without revitalization the mall will continue to decline and become more of
an eyesore than it is now!
I feel the vote by the homeowners was skewed by inflammatory and misleading propaganda distributed against
the proposal that was distributed to many non resident owners who may not be aware of the condition of the
mall.
Please approve SilverStar's plans to develop the mall. It will make a better experience for homeowners and
visitors alike.
Thank you
David Haring
18160 Cottonwood Rd. #757
Sunriver, OR 97707
2/28/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jim Harnish [theharnishes@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:47 AM
To: Board
Subject: sunriver mall
Commissioners,
The deplorable, outdated, dirty Sunriver Mall must be torn down. Those one or two week a year owners do not have to
see it on a daily basis. We live here year around and know how deplorable it is. Hopefully the majority will be heard
and the SilverStar project will go forward.
Jim Harnish
#2 Muir
Sunriver
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Richard Hansen [dickhansen@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:40 AM
To: Board
Subject: File No. PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
REF: File No. PA-07-6 and TA-07-6
We have been Sunriver homeowners since 1974 and OPPOSE the SilverStar
proposed development of an urban, high profile, high density "Town Center District" on the
land currently comprising the Sunriver Mall and the resultant requests for zoning changes.
The SilverStar proposal and requested zoning changes, quite simply, are inconsistent with the
heritage and long established vision for Sunriver. The proposed "Town Center" totally
violates the original Sunriver planning concept, and is in direct opposition with previous
homeowner agreed upon operational and planning documents such as the current SROA
Mission Statement, CC&R's, Consolidated Plan, Long Range Plan and strategic
studies. And, as evidenced by the recent failure of the SROA proposed land sale to
SilverStar, a significant percentage of Sunriver homeowners are against such a radical
change. The very character and nature of Sunriver is at stake. We have previously paid a
premium to live in and enjoy the well thought out vision of Sunriver, and now must not
forsake our long established and time proven standards and values.
Further, the proposed zoning changes, if implemented will establish a significant negative
precedent that directly threatens retention of existing deeded common areas, such as the
Meadow, parks, roadways, pathways, and greenbelts that are so much a part of what makes
Sunriver unique and special. The same re-zoning that SilverStar is trying to get for
development of a high profile, high density "Town Center" could be further used to develop
portions, or all, of our remaining common areas and may even threaten encroachment of the
river, golf courses, etc.
After reading and discussing all the issues, we strongly support the need to rehab the village
mall, but have serious concerns over the SilverStar/SROA Board "Town Center"
development plan and resultant effort to change current zoning provisions. In a nutshell, we
think the SilverStar "cure" is worse than the "disease". In addition, as again evidenced by the
recent failure of the SROA Board proposed land sales agreement, we feel that the SROA
Board and their publicly stated positions have been unfairly biased in their support of
SilverStar, have not adequately represented Sunriver homeowners views, opinions or desires,
and therefore their position of support should not be viewed as representative of all
homeowners. We, and a significantly large number of homeowners, think we need to search
for other alternatives.
We urge you and the the Deschutes County Commission to respect, preserve and maintain
what Sunriver has long been noted for by maintaining the existing zoning regulations for
2/28/2008
Page 2 of 2
Sunriver.
We therefore respectively request that the Deschutes County Commission deny the
applications for plan amendment PA-07-6 and text amendment TA-07-6.
Dick and Jean Hansen
John Hansen
3 Doral Lane
Sunriver
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: David Hansen [dhansen@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:30 AM
To: Board
Dear Commissioner Baney:
My name is David Hansen and my wife and I are full time residents of Sunriver at 8 Hickory
Lane. We are writing to respectfully request the Board to DENY the request by SilverStar
L.L.C. to change Sunriver's zoning to a Town Center District file ref; TA-07-6, PA-07-6. I
attended the Planning Commission meeting where it was their recommendation to allow the the re-
zoning with changes. We believe that that process was flawed due to;
Conflict of interest of a commission member who was the chief proponent of approving the
request.
The commission member attending via teleconferencing voted no then changed her vote to yes
under questioning.
Further, we do not believe that Deschutes County intended Sunriver to be the repository for
possibly the tallest building east of the Cascades when Sunriver was zoned.
Key phrase. Sub 3. Development shall take into consideration the unique physical features of
the community and be sensitive to the residential development within which the
community areas are interspersed. From page 39 of D CC 23.40
Also, we believe that the proposed re-districting goes against the original developers intent
as well as Deschutes County original intent as evidenced by;
A key phrase from Deschutes County Code 23.40, page 32 is, "With the help of a stakeholder
advisory committee comprised of key members of the community who represent a multitude of
property owners and development interests, the decision was made to proceed with the planning
process for Sunriver as an Urban Unincorporated Community. It was the consensus of the
committee that the provisions allotted for Urban Unincorporated Communities under the rule
offered the greatest practical degree of flexibility for future growth and
development in Sunriver. "
While this particular citation may not accurately be applied to the commercial zone of the
Village, it none the less did take into consideration the future development issues at the time
and the vision of Sunriver. Sunriver is not a Retail Destination nor should it be a high
density urban area.
In staff's recommendation to you following the last public Planning Commission meeting, staff
cited as a positive that a new turnaround will be constructed by the Sunriver Owners
Association improving ingress and egress to the area which would be helpful in case of fire or
other emergencies. Since the Land Sale Ballot was defeated by the owners of Sunriver, this
roundabout will not be constructed and therefore this part of staff's recommendation should be
amended. Also, staff cited a need for overnight lodging and that Sunriver's location made it
suited for such a need. Overnight lodging is already provided by Sunriver Lodge and it is our
belief that capacity is sufficient. It is inconceivable that any new single night lodging
would attract any new business from north south travelers who couldn't make it from Bend to La
Pine or vice versa.
Lastly, it is our belief that part of the testimony in support for the re-districting from
Sunriver owners Association states "overwhelming support" for SilverStar's plan. According to
the results of the ballot that FAILED February 15th, there is NOT overwhelming support to turn
Dur community into high density urban area for the sake of some possibly upgraded retail
chopping opportunities.
?lease consider the above in your deliberations and DENY the proposed re-districting so that
2/28/2008
Page 2 of 2
our community will be maintained as Deschutes County and the developers originally envisioned.
Thank You,
David and Marsha Hansen
8 Hickory Lane
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: fmkinyon@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:10 AM
To: Board
Subject: SUNRIVER MALL DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF DESCHUTES COUNTY:
I AM A LONG TIME HOME OWNER IN SUNRIVER.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN YOU ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING. SIMPLY STATED,
IT IS TOO CONCENTRATED, TOO LARGE, THE OVERALL SIZE IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE A REASONABLE
CONFIGURATION FOR SUNRIVER. THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT SHOULD FIT A DESIGN STANDARD
THAT FITS SUNRIVER, NOT A SIZE THAT IS DRIVEN BY THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE MALL BY THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPER. AS AN ASIDE, I AM AMAZED THAT ANYONE WOULD BUY A PROPERTY
SUCH AS THE MALL, THEN PROCEED WITH ZONING AND RELATED MODIFICATIONS. BUT THAT IS
THEIR PROBLEM, NOT SUNRIVER'S.
I LIVE IN PORTLAND, BUT HAVE ATTENDED SEVERAL BOARD MEETINGS WHEN POSSIBLE. I DO NOT
FEEL THE BOARD IS ACCURATELY REPRESENTING TO YOU THE A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. I PRESUME YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RECENT NO VOTE ON THE ADDITIONAL
LAND ACQUISITION.
SINCERELY, FREDERICK AND BELINDA KINYON
Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
3/3/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Duane Hill [dhillster@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver SilverStar Proposal
Dear County Commissioners:
I appreciate your willingness to consider my opinion concerning SilverStar's development of the Sunriver Village. As a
long term permanent resident of Sunriver, it has been very disappointing to watch the continuing deterioration of the
Mall over the past several years.
I don't know anyone who is not in favor of a more healthy, vibrant Mall for the enjoyment of Sunriver residents and
visitors. Most Sunriver homeowners, although not a majority of 60% as evidenced by the recent vote, understand that
for the mall to be developed there must be some commercial benefit to the developer.
People who are opposed to the SilverStar development are trying to get something for nothing. They too would like to
see a more vibrant mall, but they aren't willing to accept the changes necessary to make the investment viable. In your
deliberations please do not reward those taking this unrealistic, uncompromising position.
The only point on which those opposed and those in favor of SilverStar's development agree is that Sunriver needs a
better mall. Please use your powers to help that happen.
Sincerely,
Duane Hill
14 Cypress
Sunriver, OR 97707
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
3/3/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jay Smith Daycs@chamberscable.com)
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: the Village in Sunriver
My wife and I are contacting you to express our support for the plans of SilverStar, to develop the Village at Sunriver. We have
been full time residents in Sunriver since July of 1996. During this time, we have watched with dismay the sad deterioration of our
Mall. Now we have a company with a realistic plan for developing an active Village/Mall.
There are obviously two different groups with opinions in Surviver. The recent vote concerning the sale of some small parcels of
land demonstrated this. However, 56% voted "yes". A large number of the dissident group are parttime residents, who come for a
visit and then leave. They are not really the right people to say we have no problem with the Village; they do not live with it every
day.
Please allow SilverStar the opportunity to move forward with their plans for Village development. Thank you...Jay and Yvonne
Smith (29 Cypress Lane)
?/28/2008
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Bonnie Baker
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Sunriver Village Development
Attachments: Commissioner Letter 2.doc
Am sending this one as is since it has an attachment.
From: Howard Finck [mailto:hfinck@cmc.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:18 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Development
I was advised by Save Sunriver that the messages I sent to you as individuals may not have reached you. Therefore, I'm re-
sending the attached letter.
Howard Finck
Please note, my email address will be changing to:
hfinck@chamberscable.com
Please send all email to this new address.
Commissioners Mike Daly, Tammy Baney, and Dennis Luke
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Bend, Oregon
Dear Commissioners,
I am one of the substantial number of owners who voted against selling more land to
SilverStar in furtherance of their plans for our Village Mall. The project is clearly an
urban housing development, with traffic, parking, density, and height issues that more
properly belong in The Pearl District of Portland.
We moved here after decades of visiting because of the values inherent in Sunriver, as
articulated by the founders, supported by the architects in the initial plans, and well-
stewarded by most boards until recently. We were (and are) in a position to choose many
other places to reside, and our values were more consistent with Sunriver than other
areas. We could have moved to other "European style" resort centers such as
WhistlerBlackcomb, but are more interested in something that graces the environment
we have rather than dominates it and attempts to develop it for maximum profit. This is
our home, not our investment center.
We're very comfortable doing day to day shopping for food here, and traveling to Bend
for the other requirements of life; in any event, the project is not about retail invigoration,
it's about the quickest way to make money from the sale of dense housing units.
Located near the river, we enjoy the casual paths, bird-watching, golf, kayaking, quiet,
and the incredible surroundings. We don't want to see those attributes put into jeopardy
with either the current housing proposal by the developer, or by overuse of the
recreational assets we enjoy.
Unless the concerns we "no" voters are addressed in the project that eventually will be
approved (and everyone I've talked to is willing to compromise, except, apparently, the
developer), we'll try to find a home that is more consistent with our values, and the
values we believed inherent to Sunriver.
Sincerely,
J. Howard Finck
28 Siskin, Sunriver
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Rob Fallow [robf@s-a-woods.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Board
Cc: dbrannan@chamberscable.com
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Dear Commissioners:
My name is Rob Fallow and my family and I own a home in Sunriver (#7 Loon) and we are very concerned about the current
proceedings that you are in the middle of reviewing and formalizing a decision. We are concerned about the impact of the size of
the development on the common amenities and the infrastructure of Sunriver by this design. We feel the developer has not
considered the impact of this on the overall Sunriver property - both directly and indirectly.
We are most concerned that the current SROA Board has misrepresented the feelings of the property owners in Sunriver to you.
The vote just taken is a most graphic repudiation of this.
The current owner of the Sunriver Mall has misrepresented the supposed consensus they say that they have forged in our
community. The vote just taken shows that this consensus is not correct.
The process that was undertaken is flawed from that followed by most successful city endeavors dealing with significant
redevelopment. I am quite familiar with the process and have participated in a number of them in Clackamas County and Lake
Oswego. Usually, the City and/or the developer will participate in some type of a visioning process with a group of stakeholders
(political representatives and staff of city; representatives of surrounding property owners; representative of other effected parties
such as other business districts, schools, public service providers; etc.) to the area in question BEFORE a final design/vision is
ever put to the voters or entitlements put in place. That vision will then drive the zoning and entitlement process that will allow the
vision to take shape.
This process was short-circuited by the SROA Board and the developer in a way that did not allow for a broad based coalition to
be formed to give the program the chance for success. The SROA Board also took it on themselves to use SROA funds to
promote the project while not allowing the dissenting property owners the same access to these resources. If funding or access to
other direct mailings of the Board regarding this vote had been fair, the results against this current design/process would have
been significantly more overwhelming negative.
With that said, many of the negative votes, mine included, are of those that would support a well thought out redevelopment of the
current SR Mall. I do not think it would be too difficult for the Board to start the process over and do it right and they as well as the
developer might be very surprised to find a high level of support for this process and project. I think that it would be in the best
interest of the Deschutes County Commission to return this request back to SROA for them to review the process and resubmit it
for review after meeting with a representative group of dissident property owners and the developer to try to reach some
consensus.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Best regards,
Rob Fallow
Cc: SROA Board President
Terri Hansen Payne
From: leon medeiros [alawaibligh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:11 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver
Please note the many problems that Siverstar is creating in Sunriver. Note also their
deceptions.
For example, Silverstar claims 95% support from Sunriver owners. This is a lie or a
deception or a stupidity. The recent vote reveals almost 46% do not like the Silverstar
plan. Have you heard this deceptive company make any concessions? No. Have you seen
them try to bully and threat their way to getting what they want? Seems like it to me.
And have you seen them say that if they did not get the vote they wanted, they would then
back out of their plans? Yes.
But after threatening to quit, have they? No, they have not. They are continuing to try
to move forward their way.. So did they once again bully and lie?
Seems probably like they did, don't you think?
Therefore, if they have revealed themselves as deceptive in some things, do you not think
it a high probability that they are deceptive in other areas?
Maybe many? Do you want to be a party to this?
Sincerely: Leon Medeiros, a Sunriver concerned owner.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now
_ylt=Ahu06i62sRBHDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: DayDreamBuilders@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Board; Terri Hansen Payne; jkahnoski@sunrivertelecom.com
Subject: Silver Star Destination in Sunriver
To whom it concerns,
Hello my name is David Tomlinson, I am a Sunriver homeowner and a General Contractor specializing in remodels and
additions. I have been building for 30 years and have done 90% of my business over the last 10 years in Sunriver. I am very
much in favor of change and am fully aware of the SR Malls current state, aging and deterioration. It is in great need of
renovations and or alterations.
I was not in favor of the Silver Star Destinations final plan in the recent past, for various reasons. Lack of
communication/education on Silver Star's part and the overwhelming lobbying against it is/was to blame. In the few short weeks
before the vote much bad publicity cast a large shadow of doubt on Silver Star. Had they spent more time and resources
making the homeowners more knowledgeable of the larger plan vs the original, during the 2 years leading up to this, I believe
many people, including myself would have understood their need for the larger plan. I would now vote in favor with the
knowledge I have obtained myself.
I hope they do not give up and can show the homeowners a well presented plan. Since the majority of owners do not live in
Sunriver, they need to reach out, educate and be open for communications. I believe if they do these things they could put it up
for vote again and win.
I hope your decisions on this matter are favorable as well.
Thank you for your interest and time,
Dave Tomlinson
Day Dream Builders LLC
CCB #167781
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Dan & Dorothy [grandotdan@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:43 PM
To: Board
Subject: Another Take Perhaps
Sirs/Madams:
Just a brief informal word to say, from where I sit, there has been no unanimity or even a hard-core majority among
homeowners at Sunriver regarding the recent vote to make changes at the mail, something I think most of us would like to see.
The proposed changes recently voted on (we voted "no") need a careful scrutiny as does the method used by the homeowners'
association to continue forward.
I do not have the data in front of me that makes the changes somewhat problematic, but I want you to know that the proposal
that I voted "no" on was done principally because I don't want to see Sunriver change its basic character. I know that's a bit
personal, but it is the way I feel and the main reason we are at Sunriver in the first place.
Please give this matter careful consideration. It appears to me that some things are being done disingenuously by many
"powers-that-be."
Dan G. Danner
Skyline 14
2/28/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: 'John Liel'
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver mall proposal
Hi John-
I received your addition to the record... please know that it has been added.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Raney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: John Liel [mailto:john.liel@gmail.com)
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:29 PM
To: Tammy Baney
Subject: Re: Sunriver mall proposal
I would like to add that Silver Star's claims that 95%5 of people polled support their
effort is flatly false. Roughly 45~ of Sunriver owners voted NO on the land transfer to
Silver Star, the only way we could express our displeasure with Silver Star and the SROA
Board's plans.
Thank you,
John Liel
On Feb 25, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Tammy Baney wrote:
> Hi John-
> Thank you for your email; I appreciate you sharing your concerns. I
> will forward your comments to our Community Development Director so
> that they can be added to the public record.
> In Partnership,
> Tammy (Baney) Melton
> Deschutes County Commissioner
> Office: 541 388-6567
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Liel [mailto:john.liel@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:42 PM
> To: Tammy Baney
> Subject: Sunriver mall proposal
> Ms. Baney,
> We have been Sunriver property owners for 15 years. We did not buy in
> Sunriver to have small city dumped in the mall area. While we would
> support mall redevelopment with a much lower impact, we would rather
> have nothing done to the mall area than see the Silver Star proposal
> go forward. We urge you to reject Silver Star's proposal as it
> stands-
1
> Thank you,
> John and Harriet Liel
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Cindy Morris-Autrey [morriscindy@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:04 PM
To: Board
Subject: sunriver
let downtown bend have the lofts and walks and "Aspen-look" and leave sunriver be
Cynthia Morris
morriscindy@hotmail.com
3/3/2008
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: R Chris Christensen [RChrisChristensen@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:25 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Sunriver Village
To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
From: Chris & Millie Christensen, Sunriver
Subject: Sunriver Village/Silver Star proposal
Given the current political climate and hype we're all bombarded with each day, it wasn't surprising to me that
the recent 'Village' vote taken in our community didn't garner the 60% needed for passage. It was close
(nearly 56% voted) of which most were in support of the change. My personal sense was that had this vote
taken place in the spring time or summer, when non-full time home owners return, the vote would have been a
landslide in favor of the proposed changes to revitalize Sunriver.
Homeowners who do not live in Sunriver full time (we do) and will be soon returning, will be shocked at the
deterioriation of the Village as it looks today. In addition, this wonderful place now needs a serious infusion
of new home owners and their capital to simply deal with the other much needed improvements such as roads,
pathways, recreational facilities, etc. Most of us, I would say, saw Silver Star's interest in improving the
Village as only the first step in a rebirth of Sunriver and our surrounding area.
As County Commissioners, you obviously know that in any political process, there will always be a very vocal,
focused, and, in our opinion, well meaning but misguided group of citizens who want no changes regardless.
They do not represent the majority of home owners in Sunriver and yet promote themselves as such.
Can the original plans promoted by Silver Star for the development of the Sunriver Village be modified? Yes.
Is their a common ground acceptable to all parties that can be agreed upon to make this happen? We would
hope so but are not optomistic.
We support the Silver Star initiative in Sunriver and hope the County Commissioners see this as a positive
first step in improving not only Sunriver but all of Deschutes County.
As you review the documents and comments, we hope you will see that this opportunity makes sense and agree
in favor of the Silver Star proposal.
Sincerely,
Millie Christensen
PO 3188
3/3/2008
Page 2 of 2
5unriver, Oregon
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
carolresco@comcast.net
Sent:
Friday, February 29, 2008 1:13 PM
To:
Board
Cc:
rescoc@ohsu.edu
Subject
: Town Center Zoning for Sunriver
Dear County Commissioners:
I am writing to protest the redevelopment of the Sunriver town center as it is currently envisioned. I am a property
owner as of 2004 and I purchased a home in Sunriver because of the enjoyable vacations I had had there in the past and
because I believed it would be a pleasant retirement home and then a vacation home for my children. I did not
purchase there because there was going to be high density apartments, and parking problems, and mall shops.
Sunriver stood for protection of the environment and its most striking features are the proximity to the Deschutes, the
views of Mt. Bachelor, the deer and wildlife in the back yard, and not the restaurants and shops of a village mall!!
This development-- proposed by people who really don't seem to have the expertise and have some questionable
background--will undo much of what makes Sunriver special to me. I voted with others against this and I would hope
that the county would listen to the property owners of the area.
Thanks for your consideration.
Carol Resco
Beaverton, Oregon
41 Alta Lane, Sunriver
3/3/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Barbara and Frank Brocker [bbrocker@cmc.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 11:05 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village
Board of County Commissioners,
I write to urge your vote in favor of the zoning change for Sunriver as proposed by SilverStar. For the first time in many years, the
possibility exists of a mall revitalization in Sunriver. As a long-time owner and Sunriver resident, I have watched with dismay the
steady decline of the Mail. Finally, we have investors who are willing to spend effort and money to reverse that decline.
They may not have a perfect plan. But they do have a plan! The alternative to moving forward is a continued downward spiral of
mall deteriorization which will impact the entire Sunriver community.
I urge your speedy approval of the zone changes.
Frank Brocker
Owner at Cedar Lane 5
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Barbara and Frank Brocker [bbrocker@cmc.net)
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Proposed Plan
Board of County Commissioners,
I urge your support of the proposed zoning changes for the Sunriver Village.
While my of a "sleek sailboat" design would have been nice, you as a Board have responded to our concerns and have reduced
the density. I appreciate your listening to us Sunriver residents and responding.
Now it is time to move on and renovate the Village. The plan may not be perfect, but I urge its support.
Thanks for listening to us. I value your judgment and appreciate your consideration.
Barbara Brocker
Owner and Resident, Cedar Lane 5
Sunriver
3/3/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Joseph Maley Umaley92@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:48 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
To: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
I am a long time homeowner (34 years) and now full time resident of Sunriver for the past 13 years. During this time we have
watched the mall go from a vibrant asset to a dismal liability. We are very concerned that lack of action at this time in redoing the
mall could result in a further decrease in property values. Those against the current plan glibly state that someone else will step in
and do what they want. I know several people who are owners and developers of malls and they see no likelihood of anyone else
doing so. Our own history certainly indicates it is extremely unlikely.
This is an opportunity that most of us who live here do not want to pass up. We have seen too many years go by with no action to
have any hope of some other developer stepping in with a better plan. We strongly support the plan put forth by SilverStar.
Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter.
Joe & Dottie Maley
2 Trophy Lane
Sunriver, OR
593-1181
jmaley92(cD-chamberscable.com
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jeff Musgrove [Jeff@musgroves.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:11 AM
To: Board
Subject: Silverstar in Sunriver
Dear Board - I want to take this opportunity to write in support of Silverstar's plan for the Sunriver Mall. Our family has owned a
vacation home in Sunriver for over 10 years. We enjoy all of the outdoor activities that Sunriver offers, but going to the mall is like
visiting a ghost town. I realize that Silverstar's plans call for a lot of change in the mall, but I feel that change is exactly what is
necessary. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jeff Musgrove
Jeff Musgrove
Musgrove Family Mortuary
1152 Olive St.
Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 686-2818 FAX (541) 345-8463
3/3/2008
Pagel of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: M.K. Maguire [mmaguire37@yahoo.com)
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:15 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver and proposed new zoning
Sunriver OR 97707
March 3, 2008
To: Members of the Deschutes County Commissioners:
Email address: Board@co.deschutes.or.us
Thank you for your time and the consideration that you are giving to the proposed town center zoning for Sunriver.
I live full time in Sunriver and have owned my home since 1997. I am very concerned that Sunriver's Owners have
been offered only once the opportunity to express officially their views regarding SilverStar Destinations' proposed
development. The percentage of Owners approving the ballot measure did not reach the needed 60% approval required
to pass the measure. In addition, the opportunity for public input-the ballot measure-did not allow Owners to
express their views regarding the issue of the proposed town center zoning.
Many other troubling issues have remained unaddressed. The following is one example.
Issue: Emergency Evacuation and Sunriver's Main Entrance Road.
The main entrance road to Sunriver is one of two primary emergency evacuation routes for the community of Sunriver.
The main entrance road is located in the sourthern part of Sunriver and provides emergency egress for southern
Sunriver. Cottonwood Road is located in northern Sunriver and serves for emergency egress for the northern part of
Sunriver. If one of the two roads becomes blocked or unusable, all of Sunriver's traffic must use the remaining road
for emergency egress.
During emergency evacuations, the main entrance road to Sunriver is a potential bottleneck for stopping the flow of
traffic from south Sunriver. The main entrance road is a short but very narrow, curving two lane road. The main
entrance road does not contain shoulders allowing room for driving around a stalled car or for stalled cars to park off
road. Instead, the shoulder area slopes steeply down from the road on both sides of the road.
Because of its southern location in Sunriver, the main entrance road provides emergency egress for most of Sunriver's
high density residential units. These units are situated primarily in the southern section of Sunriver. These residential
units include townhouses, condominiums and shared interest units. The main entrance road also provides emergency
egress for guests and employees of the Sunriver Resort and for customers, employees and business owners of the mall's
shops. The mall is located near and almost adjacent to Sunriver's main entrance road.
SilverStar Destinations proposes high density shared interest residential units, a hotel and a shopping complex at the
existing mall's site. Sunriver's main entrance road provides the closest emergency egress for this proposed high
density development.
In recent years, no studies or traffic counts have been conducted examining Sunriver's emergency evacuation
capabilities. Some question how we can determine the appropriate density for new developments without acquiring
facts from professional studies.
Before granting approval for SilverStar Destinations' request for a new zone allowing increased density, do we not
need to assess the capability of Sunriver's main entrance road, a narrow curving road, to provide emergency egress for:
Page 2 of 2
1.Our cur rent numbers of residents, visitors, employees and business owners?
2.The additional number s of visitors and residents, employees and business owners that SilverStar's proposed
development would bring to the south entrance of Sunriver?
Suggestion for Consideration: Studies of emergency evacuation procedures
Before granting any type of approval for SilverStar Destinations' request for a new zone, please give consideration to
requiring formal and complete emergency evacuation studies that focus upon the main entrance road to Sunriver.
Please give consideration to requiring that these studies be completed by appropriate professionals of Deschutes
County Agencies and/or professionals who are not employees of or hold contracts with SilverStar Destinations.
Again thank you for your time and consideration spent on this issue.
Sincerely,
Marcia Maguire
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
3/3/2008
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Nancy & Dallas Henrichsen [sunriver98@chamberscable.com)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver mall
Board of County Commissioners
This email is in support of the Sunriver Mall. As you know the February vote to sell 6 pieces of land to Silver Star failed. But a
super majority of 60% was needed. The point I want to make is that 56% of those voting did want to proceed with the sale and
were in favor of the Silver Star project versus 44% against. Keep in mind that in a presidential election if one candidate got 56%
of the popular or 10% more that the opposition the winning candidate would claim vociferously that he/she had a mandate from
the people.
I feel that there is a mandate from the homeowneres in Sunriver to do something with the current mall and I urge the Board of
County Commissioners to create a new zoning, Town Center District.
Sincerely,
Dallas Henrichsen
15 Malheur
Sunriver, Or.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Sallie & Dave Hennessy [hennessyl30@chamberscable.coml
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:56 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Mike Daley, Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton
Deschutes County Commissioners
March 4, 2008
Dear Commissioners:
My husband and I have been full time residents in Sunriver for a number of years. We have watched with sadness the
steady decline of the Village Mall. Our hopes rose when the prior owner, DBSI, purchased the Mall and made public
promises of new businesses and significant improvements, only to have them slump again when nothing was done.
The DBSI experience taught us the Village Mall cannot survive in its current form of two-story commercial-only
buildings scattered around a huge, empty plaza. The Mall was planned to be the commercial and social center of
Sunriver and thus always has been important to the quality of life here. Yes, we enjoy living in a neighborhood nestled
in a National Forest. However, that is tempered significantly when we must drive to Bend to do any meaningful
shopping, especially when the weather is bad.
In addition, local real estate agents and property managers have been telling us for years that visitors and prospective
buyers have been asking, "Why does Sunriver tolerate this?" Sooner or later, if this trend is not reversed, market
values of our residences will be impacted negatively. This would be good for no one.
We believe the vision of a new, redesigned and rebuilt Village Mall as proposed by SilverStar will be a tremendous
asset to the community of Sunrlver as well as to Deschutes County and all of Central Oregon. SilverStar's vision will bring a host of attractive sights,
sounds and aromas to a compact village that provides worry-free residential living in Sunriver yet in close proximity to shops, restaurants, grocery and services and two
plazas for special events like wine festivals and art and crafts shows. And then there is the hotel clock tower. Where the opponents see a monstrosity, we see a new
signature landmark that residents, guests and visitors will use as a meeting place: "Let's meet at the clock tower and go shopping!"
SilverStar's vision is an exciting one. If they are allowed to make it a reality, it will be a draw for tourists and visitors
whose business will enrich both Sunriver and Bend and all of Central Oregon. How exciting!
My husband and I ask that you approve the definition of Town Center District zoning and, when the issue comes before
you, approve the application of that zoning to the Sunriver Village Mall. Please don't let this vision fade away, and
leave us with a ghost town Mall.
Sincerely,
David and Sallie Hennessy
1 Verdin Lane Sunriver. OR
3/4/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Scott Hall [scotth@chamberscable.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:13 AM
To:
Board
Cc:
Terri Hansen Payne
Subject
: SR Mall
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am an 8 year owner, 2 year permanent resident, and feel extremely fortunate to live in the Sunriver community. I am strongly in
favor of SilverStar's efforts to revitalize our mall.
Respectfully,
Scott Hall, MD
I Scott Hall, MD
18160 Cottonwood Road, #459
Sunriver, OR 97707
541 598-2075
March S, 2008
Board of County Commissioners
Re: Silver Star Proposal for the Development of the Sunriver Mall
I understand that sometime this month you will be taking into consideration the creation of a
town district zoning for the Sunriver Mall.
I am writing to you to express my support of this zoning change. I am a long time resident of
Sunriver, having lived here since 1983. My husband and I owned and operated two businesses in
the Sunriver Mall for approximately fifteen years. We both feel that the mall is in desperate need
of revitalization.
The mall is currently in extremely poor condition. Roofs are leaking (and collapsing). Wiring is
shoddy. There are many vacancies and few reasons to spend any amount of time there. In order
for the remaining businesses to operate profitably drastic changes must be made.
Silver Star is the first owner in my memory who has made a legitimate offer to make positive
changes in the mall. They are willing to invest the time and money necessary to do this. I feel
that we need to encourage their efforts.
As demonstrated by the recent vote, a majority of Sunriver owners are in favor of Silver Star's
proposals.
I urge your support.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Thatcher
13 Shag Bark
Sunriver, OR 97707
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Katie Hall [katieh@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:55 AM
To: Board; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Sunriver Village
am a permanent resident in Sunriver. We have owned property here for 8 years and have
been coming to this little treasure in Central Oregon for many many years.
The state of the current mall is a disgrace. It certainly is not what you would expect to be
housed in the middle of a 4-5 star resort and not what most of the residents here want.
We need something creative and dynamic to be done to the Village Mall.
I urge you to approve a new town district and hopefully then we will at least have a chance to
make this home of ours what it should be.
As a note, I read in the Bulletin this week that the new Director of Golf for the Sunriver Resort
wants to bring a major PGA event to Sunriver. Do you think that could possibly happen with the
current state of our village.? It would be a real embarrassment to all of us in Central Oregon.
Thank you for your consideration.
Katie Hall
3 Mt. Rose Ln
Sunriver, OR
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Ron Angell [rangell@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:33 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Sunriver Mall Zoning
Dear Commissioners:
I wish to register my support for the zoning changes proposed by the SilverStar organization and to urge you to approve this
request. My wife and I have owned a home here in Sunriver for over 20 years and have been full time residents for over 6 years.
In my opinion, only by allowing a significant residential use to occur in the mall area can we restore vitality to this part of Sunriver.
The SilverStar plan allows this to occur while also providing for a reasonable amount of retail and open space.
Ron Angell
4 McNary Lane
Sunriver
3/6/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: irisintl@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:29 PM
To: Board
Subject: SilverStar's proposed Sunriver Village development
We are owners of a home at 8 Shadow Lane in Sunriver. We strongly support the redevelopment of the Sunriver
Village as proposed by SilverStar. This redevelopment is badly needed to bring Sunriver into the 21 st Century in
comparison of other places and facilities in the country. We think such a development by SilveStar would be most
beneficial and bring more business to Bend too.
Your positive approval of this project would be most appreciated.
Rolland and Isabel Sears
Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jay Smith Daycs@chamberscable.comj
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:17 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Cc: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall plans.....
Dear Ms. Payne,
I am a full time Sunriver resident(and have been full time since 1996) and I want to add my positive comments in favor of Silver
Star's plans for a new mall.
I've noticed that most of the negative comments come from part time owners. The mall is becoming increasingly run down and
depressing. If no one wants to develop a new mall, then, it should be razedW
Sincerely,
Yvonne Smith
29 Cypress Lane
3/6/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: George Carver [gtccarver@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:16 PM
To: Board
As a frequent user of Sunriver facilities, please accept my support for a zone change.
George Carver
20857 King David Ave.
Bend, Or 97702
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Vavene Carver [vavenecarver@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:54 PM
Subject: Sunriver Zone Change
As an owner of a timeshare and frequent user of the amenities at Sunriver, I support the zone change to
enhance the Sunriver Mall proposal.
Vavene Carver
20857 King David Avenue
Bend, OR 97702
3/7/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Jane Williams Danew@kubark.com]
Sent:
Friday, March 07, 2008 9:28 AM
To:
Board
Subject:
urging support of Silver Star's revitalizing the new Town Center at Sunriver
Members of the Board...
Please consider that the continued neglected of the current Village Mall saps the energy
out of much of southern Deschutes County, as the village has a far wider reach than just
Sunriver proper. Having a vital center of grocery shopping, dining out, retail experiences
and over-night stays will have a positive economic effect for a population of over 20,000.
It is counter-intuitive, I believe, to prevent this professional group, SilverStar
Destinations, from revitalizing the deteriorated center of an otherwise vibrant
community. Other upgrades, such as those to the Sunriver Marina and Sables, are
investments in pulling more visitors to the area and attracting more permanent residents.
I urge your support of this rare opportunity to enhance and enrich the economic base of
much of Deschutes County.
Jane Williams
19 Gannet Lane
Sunriver
Page l of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:58 PM
To: 'Diana Gustavson'; Board
Cc: Pete Gustavson; Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: re-zoning of Sunriver mall
Hi Diana-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
Tvv.vv,U (gGly e~) Meltov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Diana Gustavson [mailto:prgius@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 9:35 AM
To: Board
Cc: Pete Gustavson
Subject: re-zoning of Sunriver mall
I am a Sunriver homeowner and I strongly support the re-zoning of the Sunriver Mall to allow the revitalization
proposed by the Silverstar group. Sincerely, Diana Gustavson
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
3/10/2008
Page ] of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:59 PM
To: 'Chuck & Marlies Kostow'; Board; infosroa@srowners.org
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall Redevelopment
Hi Chuck and Marlies-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
Ta vu.vu U (-F n weU) m6tov-
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Chuck & Marlies Kostow [mailto:cmkostow@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 2:42 PM
To: Board; infosroa@srowners.org
Cc: Chuck & Marlies Kostow
Subject: Sunriver Mall Redevelopment
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
From: Chuck & Marlies Kostow
Owners #2 Jay Ln. and #2 Makaha, Sunriver, Or.
RE: 5unriver Mall Redevelopment
Now that the election concerning the sale of 5unriver common property has been defeated, we feel it is important to
explain our opposition to 5ilverstar's proposal. We have heard numerous statements about 5unriver owner's support of this
project that are obviously not true based on the election results. We feel that you, the County Commissioners, should hear
directly what our views are on this matter.
While we believe it is true that a large number, if not most, of 5unriver owners support revitalization of the Mall, we feel
5ilver5tar deliberately, and dishonestly, tried to distort the level of support for their version of the redevelopment. We
are also concerned that the 5unriver Owner's Association (5ROA) Board misrepresented the level of support for the
project. While we have no evidence that the 5ROA Board was, somehow, improperly inspired to support the project as has
been alleged by some, we also can't understand how they could be so enthusiastic in their support of a project that is so
obviously contrary to the interests of the 5unriver owners.
We support the revitalization of the 5unriver Mall, but we believe several key elements must be maintained in the process.
Page 2 of 2
1) Redevelopment must be consistent with the original design philosophy and the overall feel and character of
5unriver.
2) Common areas are vital to Sunriver's character and should be protected as buffers and natural areas.
3) The mall should be a public area for all owners and guests to use.
4) Mall improvements should not negatively impact other aspects of 5unriver or other properties in 5unriver.
The addition of 500 residences plus hotel rooms would overly burden all other public facilities, particularly
the pools, tennis courts, bike paths and roadways.
The 5ilverStar proposal is seriously deficient in all of these elements. The proposed density is way too high for 5unriver
and there has been no attempt to maintain common and natural areas or to incorporate adequate public areas.
3/10/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:01 PM
To: 'STEPHEN G CROLEY; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Zoning text change applicable to application being considered for Sunriver
Hi Stephen-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and
Daly; in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tovit.vwtu (-F PV"eU) Meltoo,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: STEPHEN G CROLEY [mailto:jscroley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 5:03 PM
To: Board
Subject: Zoning text change applicable to application being considered for Sunriver
I urge you to adopt the changes being sent to you by the Deschutes County Plan'g Commission
that apply specifically to the development options being considered by Sunriver.
The current condition of our retail center in Sunriver is sadly lacking and effects us significantly in
several ways.
While the recent vote of our owners rejected a plan that was proposed to revitalize our village
center, it would appear that other options are now being evaluated that would also require the
zone change being requested Even if nothing materializes with the current developer, it is still in
our best interest to consider other developers later.
Stephen G. Croley, PO Box 4645, Sunriver, OR 94707, Ph 541-593-2068, FAX 541-593-1932
jscroley@msn.com
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Sherry Hill [sherzhill@yahoo.comj
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:14 AM
To: Board; Terri Hansen Payne
Cc: Jonathan Kahnoski
Subject: Sunriver Village Proposal
Dear Sirs,
I urge you to support the Sliver Star plan for the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall. Sunriver is a very
special place and as a full time resident, I want it to stay that way. The Sunriver Mall is the heart of
Sunriver, the very first thing most visitors see - "the" place for food, entertainment, services in Sunriver.
The Mall is a disgrace. It is old and non-functional. Contrary to the view of a FEW, the best way to save
Sunriver is to help Sliver Star execute their plan.We need a new mail. The plan to include housing units
above retail space is an excellent way to make that economically feasible. We need a new traffic plan for
the Mall/Sunriver core. Any one who has been stuck in the line of cars turning off Beaver Dr. onto Abott as
they exit Sunriver knows this (what would happen if we had an emergency evacuation?). I urge you to
support the Sliver Star plan to protect my property value and the Deschutes County tax base. Only dead fish
swim with the current, please don't let Sunriver become one.
Sherry L. Hill
14 Cypress Lane, Sunriver
3/11/2008
Page 1 of l_
Terri Hansen Payne
From: KenSmith [smithskns@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:53 PM
To: Board; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Comments in support of the SilverStar Plan at Sunriver
Board of County Commissioners
Ms Payne - Senior Planner
Re: Support of SilverStar Plan
We first started coming to Sunriver before the Ranch Cabins at Circle 4 were built - we can remember when "that " (circle 4) was a
"long way out!" At that time we knew the historic Great Hall,the grand Lodge and the bustling little mail to be the " Heart" of
Sunriver - we always had to visit all three to show our guests what Sunriver was all about, or if we were alone, we felt we had
missed our personal Sunriver experience if we had not had dinner at the lodge or the mall, or waited in line most mornings to buy
donuts at the mall bakery. Waiting in line for donuts was not a chore because you tuned into how many people were at Sunriver at
the time, conditions for skiing at Mt. Bachelor, bike path happenings and a bunch of other information about people and their
activities who chose to live or vacation in Sunriver - almost a small community Townhall experience! We also knew that the other
vital part of our Sunriver experience was that we could retreat to our "cabin in the woods", that is, the residential areas of
Sunriver, and have the perfect experience of a community planned to coexist at the highest level with its natural environment.
Because Sunriver had a public core we could take part in if we chose, and a private residential life we could escape to when
needed, 23 years ago we bought a house in Sunriver for our family of five . Then, when our family grew up and grandchildren
were coming to visit Sunriver too, we bought another house that would accommodate all 14 of us. When we bought this second
house we then had the choice of Crosswater and Caldera Springs as well as all the other new surrounding destination resorts. But
after much soul searching, as well as real-estate searching, we decided that Sunriver was still where our heart was. Rationally we
also knew that for twenty plus years Sunriver had developed in an ever evolving progressive way comfortable to our point of view,
protecting and enhancing our investment there, largely due to a responsible board of directors that had made good, informed
decisions.
We are now at another point of evolution in Sunriver with the advent of the SilverStar plan to revitalize and redevelop the declining
and outdated mall. Other assets in this destination resort have been updated including the lodge, the golf courses, bike paths,
Great Hall and added convention center, pools, fire station and planned sledding hill. Now it is time for the mall to complete the
revitalization package. The present Sunriver Board of Directors has presented information and another opportunity for the
Sunriver community to consider. I guess we needed to review our feelings about Sunriver and why we loved it from the start to
sum up why we support the mall redevelopment as presented - we go back to the idea of a refurbished mall that will match the
redevelopment of the other entities in Sunriver. Now that Sunriver extends far beyond Circle 4 we can certainly entertain the idea
of a busy, attractive mall with the certainty of still being able to retreat to our houses for the respite we also want at Sunriver. We
don't see this as an either/or situation. Why can't we still have the balance between public and private space that the SilverStar
plan does and that Sunriver had in the beginning, only in a 2008 phase of natural, progressive development?
For the above reasons we are in favor of the SilverStar plan.
Pecks Canyon Road
Ken & Sharon Smith
# 4 Sisters Lane Permanent residence: 1201
Sunriver
Yakima,
Wa 98908
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
Dennis Luke
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Mike Daly
Regarding: Proposed Sunriver Town Center
From: Jim and Mary Lou Kreiss
Sunriver Homeowners and Deschutes County Residents
Dear County Commissioners
Mary Lou and Jim Kreiss residents of Deschutes County would like to express
our support for the Town Center concept developed by Silverstar. We have been in
residence in Sunriver since 1997 and have seen the mall deteriorate with absentee
ownership and little interest in making the mall an interesting and viable business
operation.
Silverstar has proposed a Town Center with a combination of housing and a
significant business core. The proposed new Market fulfills a real need for the sunriver
area residents. The consolidated plan of Sunriver Homeowners Association requires a
super majority of 60% to pass changes to their consolidated plan. Over 56% of the total
ownership of Sunriver supported a land sale to support the Silverstar proposition.
We hope the commissioners will take a positive approach to the Town Center
development. Progress is needed to make the Sunriver Mall a viable and exciting center
for the Sunriver community and the surrounding area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jim and Mary Lou Kreiss
P O Box 4657
10 Grouse Lane
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
541-593-1496
March 11, 2008
Jkrei ssgchamberscable. com
mlkreiss@chamberscable.com
Send to County Commissioners:
By e-mail: board@co.deschutes.or.us
By Regular Mail:
Dennis Luke
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Mike Daly
1300 N W Wall St
Bend, OR 97701
For a Phone Message
388-6570
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Edward LAVERY [odanuki-san@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:05 PM
To: Board
Cc: Me
Subject: Furure development of the Sunriver Mall
With regard to any further SilverStar proposed development in Sunriver,
please insure that any parking structure is located in the center of the
development. This will not only make the facility available where it is needed
most and most likely to be actually used, but will also shield the ugly structure
and it's associated light and noise pollution from the rest of Sunriver. This is a
critical requirement and I'm shocked that it was not a precondition for approval
of the previous plan. Any truck loading docks should also be hidden from
outside street view. Please insure these issues are addressed with vigor in
any future proposals.
County Planners compared the previous proposal to the Whistler Ski resort. I'm
afraid that a critical difference was completely overlooked. At Whistler, people
fly to the area and take a shuttle or cab to the resort. They can then walk to
shopping and the ski lifts. Parking and congestion are not issues. Everyone
drives to Sunriver. Parking and congestion are major issues.
I'm thrilled that enough intelligent people had the good sense to reject the
proposed monstrosity by voting to disapprove the proposed land sale. Please
take that as a statement from the residents who were not fooled by the
propaganda and have the area's best interest in mind and act accordingly in the
future. Shame on everyone that approved the zoning changes without requiring
much more extensive changes. I know a lot of people who will be very active in
the next election as a result - myself included.
Please forward this email to all persons who were or will be involved in any
future planning for SilverStar proposals. Thank you,
Edward Lavery 6 Squirrel Lane, Sunriver, Oregon, 97707
Dear Ms. Payne, March 3, 2008
This letter is in support of the Sunriver Mall. I would like to make just one point. As I'm
sure you are aware the February vote as to whether Sunriver Owners Association should
sell several partials of land to Silver Star was defeated. However, I'm sure you are also
aware a super majority of 60% was needed to proceed with the sale.
The point I want to make is that 56% of those voting did want to proceed with the sale
and were in favor of the Silver Star project versus a 44% against. Keep in mind that in a
presidential election if one candidate got 56% of the popular vote or 10% more than the
opposition the winning candidate would claim vociferously that he/she had a mandate
from the people.
I feel that there is a mandate from the homeowners in Sunriver to do something with the
current mall and I urge you and the Board of County Commissioners to create a new
zoning, Town Center District.
Since ,
enric
15 Malheur
Sunriver, Or.
Dear Ms. Payne, March 5, 2008
I am a permanent resident of Sunriver and look forward to the development of the
Sunriver Mall by Silver Star. I feel that they are on the right track in turning this blighted
area into something which will work for Sunriver and yet retain our environmentally
friendly bounds. To continue to attract more permanent residents to this area we need to
continually upgrade our facilities, rework our infrastructure and adhere to our founders'
goals. Most of this is carried out by our SROA board and the various committees and
support staff but a boost from this developer is welcomed. I hope that the Board of
County commissioners will see fit to create a new zone for the Sunriver Mall.
S' cerely,
~ey c en
15 Malheur
Sunriver, OR
,^jn
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Betty Jo Simmons [bbjsimmons@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:37 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne; Board
Subject: Sunriver Village
Good Morning,
I wanted to express my support of the proposed changes for the Sunriver Village Mall.
My name is Betty Jo Simmons. My husband and I have built 4 homes over the years-in
Sunriver ? the first a vacation,home in 1984. We lived permanently in Sunriver during the
mid 80's and then moved to San Diego for business reasons. In 2002 we returned to
Sunriver to live our lives out. Upon our return we were very disappointed to see the
decline of the Village Mall. we remembered it as a wonderful place to just hang that
is no longer the case. In fact, our grandchildren no longer go to the Village Mall when
they come for visits. Quite frankly it is an embarrassment!
This past December we moved across the street to Caldera, the decline of the Village Mall
was partly what attracted us to Caldera. Yes, we still are in the Sunriver neighborhood
and we still want to see the village Mall improved. In my opinion the proposed renovation
is JUST WHAT IS NEEDED. I encourage you to rule in favor of the current development.
Regards,
Betty Jo Simmons
593-2004
1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Betty Jo Simmons [bbjsimmons@mac.comj
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:48 AM
To: board@codeschutes.or.us; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: The sunriver Village Mall
Hello,
My name is Bert Simmons and I want to express my STRONG SUPPORT for the proposed
renovations at the sunriver Village Mall. As a former resident of Sunriver now living in
Caldera, I believe that what effects that mall has an impact on me and my property values.
Although I do not currently live in Sunriver I am a resident of the Sunriver area and I
visit, eat and shop at the Village Mall ? or at least I would like to if it could be a
plesant experience. As the mall is currently I do not enjoy frequenting it. It is
depressing to even go over there, let alone spend any time.
I foresee the revitalized Village Mall as beneficial not just to Sunriver, but to
Crosswater, Caldera Springs and the other surrounding residential areas. I hope you will
vote to approve the new development and show your support for the residents of south
Deschutes County.
Thank you.
Bert Simmons
PO Box 4247
Sunriver, OR 97707
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Margaret Angell [mangell@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:25 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Dear Commissioners
I am a homeowner and a permanent resident of Sunriver. My family has been coming to Sunriver since the 1970's and have seen
the mall go to one of blight and deteriorating buildings.
Homeowner studies on how to improve Sunriver have always resulted with the number one priority being the
restoration/establishment of a vibrant mall area.
I would like to offer my strong support for the zoning changes proposed by SilverStar Development and ask you to approve this
request.
The majority of Sunriver homeowners are in favor of the SilverStar plan. We live in a resort community. The best of this type of
community means a nice mix of residential, retail and open space. The retail aspect of the mall is quickly deteriorating to
becoming an eyesore. Allowing limited residential property will make restoring the area feasible and will result in an exciting, fun
area of Sunriver for residents and visitors alike.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Margaret Angell
4 McNary Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
541-593-3242
mangell@chamberscable.com
3/17/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Carol Thomas [taitai@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:30 PM
To: Board
Subject: Zoning for Sunriver Village Mall
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
Re: New Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district in Sunriver and elsewhere in the County
Dear Commissioners:
As a full-time resident in Sunriver I was deeply disappointed with the results of our SROA February vote. Even though
we didn't reach our 60% approval, we did reach 56%, a mandate in many respects. I see that you will be meeting again
later this month or in April.
Please know that I am totally in favor of updating the Sunriver Village Mall and I like SilverStar's ideas. They are truly
unique. The Village Mall is in a state of disgrace. I look forward, one day, to feeling proud about it and encouraging
our guests to spend time there, once the Village Mall has changed for the better.
Please vote in favor of changing the zoning for Sunriver.
Regards,
Carol Thomas
Resident of Sunriver
24 Tournament Lane
3/17/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: H S [hspintzi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:52 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Cc: hspintzi@yahoo.com
Subject: Sunriver - Town Center district zoning
To Whom It May Concern.
My wife and I own a second home in Sunriver. Within the next 2-3 years, we are planning on moving to Sunriver full
time.
We would like to express our strong support for the proposed zoning changes to enable the proposed development of
the new Town Center.
The new Town Center would create a financially viable commercial district by increasing the residential density of a
small portion of the overall Sunriver community.
We would also like to add that it is our belief that all the parties opposed to this development have been activated, and
have made their voices (more than once) heard. However, a majority of primarily absentee owners (who may move to
Sunriver permanently) have not taken the time to explicitly support this development via emails, phone calls, or
personal representation at public meetings due to time and travel conflicts.
Sincerely,
Hammes Spintzik & Raye Bergen
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
3/17/2008
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
Re: New Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district in Sunriver and elsewhere
in the County
Dear Commissioners:
As a full-time resident in Sunriver I was deeply disappointed with the results of our
SROA February vote. Even though we did not reach the 60% approval vote we needed
for passage, we did reach 56%, a level most politicians would consider a mandate if they
were standing for election.
I have been advised that you will be meeting again later this month or in April to decide
on allowing a rezoning of the Sunriver Village Mall property, so I would like to go on
record here as saying that I am totally in favor of updating the Sunriver Village Mall and I
like SilverStar's ideas for doing so. They are truly unique. Our Mall at present is a
disgrace, and I can see no course of action, short of redeveloping it, that will change the
situation. If SilverStar can find a way to move forward with their plans, something that
will require, at a minimum, for you to approve a rezoning of the property, we might just
be able to have a commercial center in Sunriver which will make all of us proud; a place
that will attract, rather than repel, visitors.
Please vote in favor of changing the zoning for Sunriver.
Thank you,
Terence Thomas
Resident of Sunriver
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:17 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne; Mike Daly
Cc: 'Save Sunriver'; srscene@srowners.org
Subject: 18.108.055 Town Center - TC District. Proposed Changes
There seems to be no end in the changes being proposed for this new TC district in Sunriver, but the public has
been told the records are closed? Please advise how the County can continue to make changes that supports this
conflicted development without the records being reopened for public review and input? The current process seems to
be at odds with the intent of the States required Citizens Involvement Process.
I. Residential Density, The proposed density listed at 22 per gross acre in this proposed district is too great
for the area of Sunriver. No more then 10 should be approved.
K. Conceptual Site Plan. 1. The use of adjacent land to meet the landscape coverage requirements of this
proposed TC district can only be described as just poor planning, in my opinion. It also seems to be an end
around the land capacity of this districts desire to maximize the residential use of this new development. That
may be ok in the Pearl district in Portland but it does not fit in the historic design/use of Sunriver.
Bottom line; The County has responsibly not to allow poor land use planning to get incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan
just to meet the requirements of a developers idea of how to make more money.
Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA)
webweb@teleport.com
3/17/2008
31,/0 k
6 7
'~Ne..voLFa-
Lve a^c 1J7 I-Alf V
W Dt7~ 2c-
L'
Charles & Owen Bailey
18160 Cottonwood Rd. Box 234
Sunriver, OR 97707
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10A1 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Documents Posted for the 2/27/08 Work Session on the Sunriver Town Center Propos
From: DSBJ@aol.com [mailto:DSBJ@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Board
Cc: info@savesunriver.org
Subject: Documents Posted for the 2/27/08 Work Session on the Sunriver Town Center Propos
In examining the documents listed as background for the 2/27/08 Work Session regarding the Sunriver Town Center, I noted
that item 11 - which is the developers application, is labeled "Findings". Is this an error or does this imply that the
Commissioners have accepted this documents as real findings? I might add that many of the statements can only be
represented as assertions not findings since there are no bases for the statements.
Thank you for any clarification you may be able to provide.
Dennis Kreid
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/20/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: John Nicholson bnichplasticsurg@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:30 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Mall upgrade
MR/MS
The current Mall is an eyesore. Sunriver has the opportunity to vastly upgrade utilizing only 1% of the land. A
combination of condos and with middle and upper tier commercial outlets is the answer
In order to attract upgraded and an increase in commercial outlets there has to be condos.It is up to the planners to
put forth the numbers to provide the balance. The remaining households will definitely benefit.
John Nicholson--Home Owner--Wickiup --13&14
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Barbara Wade [barbara@gewade.coml
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Board; jkahnowski@sunrivertelecom.com
Subject: revitalization of the Sunriver mall
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Barbara Wade
18160 Cottonwood Rd. #433
Sunriver, OR 97707
In this email I ask you to consider one narrow component of the very complex issue of the revitalization of the Sunriver mall. It seems to me that the financial
benefit to both the county and other taxing districts is a win-win situation. You allow the mall to be revitalized to its fullest potential and we all benefit.
Deschutes County will receive an increase in taxes it collects from the commercial properties in the mall.
Deschutes County will receive an increase in the amount of room taxes it receives from Sunriver because of the number of new rental properties that will be
part of the revitalized village.
Deschutes County will receive an increase in taxes it collects from residential properties in the Sunriver area, because a revitalized mall will ensure increased
property values in this entire area.
A revitalized Sunriver Village will possibly mean an increase in the services required from the Sunriver Owners Association, the Sunriver Service District (our
police and fire departments), the Bend/La Pine School District, and the Deschutes Library District. However, since most of the people brought to this area by
a revitalized village will not be full-time residents, the increase in income to these bodies is sure to more than money required for services.
3/20/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:19 PM
To: 'ultimatewellness'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Zoning changes for Sunriver
Hi Lew-
As I mentioned to Bev, thank you for sharing your comments. I have forwarded your email to our Community Development
Department so that it will be added to the public record.
In Partnership,
T VJA_MU (ga v~,eU) Mel,tOvt
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: ultimatewellness [mailto:ultimatewellness@ultimateone.net]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 4:59 PM
To: Board
Subject: Zoning changes for Sunriver
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a fairly new resident of Sunriver, and am ashamed of the fear and misinformation that was used to defeat the
recent attempt to sell SROA land to help insure a viable, first class Sunriver Village. Having said that, we still must
move forward from where we are now with the possibilities that presently exist, so I'm urging you to quickly approve
new zoning for the Village at Sunriver.
Failure to create and apply a new mixed-use zone to the Sunriver Village area will relegate us to a second-rate
destination resort with fewer and fewer people choosing Sunriver as a destination. It will lower property values, and
deny the Village as a place of commercial business for the increased population throughout the entire area.
I urge you to unanimously support the creation of the new zoning, apply it to the commercial property in Sunriver,
and move forward with planning to create a great new Village as soon as possible.
Please do not be influenced by some who seem to be against any plan, yet offer no plan of their own. A few years
ago some 80% of Sunriver owners expressed concern about the deteriorating condition of the Village; we now have
the chance to do something about it, and we need your support.
Thank you,
Lew Davies, Sunriver resident
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:18 PM
To: 'ultimatewellness'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village Zone Change
Hi Bev-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. I have received a lot
of comments; please know that I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly; in addition to forwarding your
email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tv~,tvv.u (gGlvuet) Meltov"
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: ultimatewellness [mailto:ultimatewellness@ultimateone.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:45 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Zone Change
To Whom It May Concern,
My husband and I are full-time residents of beautiful Sunriver, and I'm writing to you to express my support for the
zoning change for the Sunriver Village.
We purchased a home here because we love Sunriver - the pathways, the river, and the forest - but also because we
felt it would be a safe place to invest money in our home for use later in our lives. I am very concerned about the
shabby condition of the Village. When we purchased here, it was with the understanding that the creation of a new
Village was pretty much a sure thing. Now, I hope Deschutes County will not bend under the pressure of a few vocal
opponents who are offering nothing in the way of an alternative.
The area around Sunriver has grown a great deal since we first began to visit here, and I know that the Sunriver
Village is a resource for many people who do not live in Sunriver proper. The commercial aspect of the Village has
served not only the residents and guests in Sunriver, but the entire area as well.
The addition of condominiums in the new mixed use Sunriver Village will not only help the commercial businesses to
be viable throughout the year, but will add value to our homes, and result in increased revenue to the county as well.
Please approve the new mixed-use zone for the Sunriver commercial property so we can move ahead with an
improved Village. We are really hurting with the loss of purchasing opportunities here, and it will only grow much
worse if this is not resolved quickly.
For these reasons I urge you to approve the new zoning for Sunriver.
Bev Davies
March 23, 2008
Board of Commissioners Deschutes County
I have been a resident of Sunriver for over 18 years. During that time I have seen
Bend triple in size and corresponding increases in Deschutes County. You are aware
of the numerous infrastructure improvements that have made during this period
and their positive impact on one of the cornerstones of the local economy - tourism.
During this period, Sunriver has grown, but its Mall has remained stagnant and is in
fact deteriorating physically as well as in appeal for the proprietors, residents and
tourists. The proposal by 5ilverstar to revitalize our Mall with an 'Alpine Village'
theme depends on your approval of the new 'Town Center Zone' (TCZ) for
Deschutes County.
Sunriver and Deschutes County are 'Vacation Land' and one of their many resources
is a world class ski resort - Mt Bachelor. But this resource is greatly underutilized
weekdays during the ski season. For vacationers, the skiing experience is more than
just sliding down the mountain. For many it is walking out the door into a different
snowy environment where one can walk to the ski lift or to a restaurant for dinner
or find entertainment and shopping. Unfortunately, the U5 Forest service is never
going to allow slopeside lodging at Mt Bachelor.
The Alpine village concept being proposed for Sunriver is the best alternate for
Deschutes County to provide this desired ambience that has proven successful for
both summer and winter recreation facilities in many other locations.
I hope you will approve the proposed Town Center Zone.
Thank You
Gentry Wade
18160 Cottonwood Rd - #433
Sunriver, OR 97707
Ph 593-6408
File: 5ilverstar-Commisioners.doc
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Beve/Jack Kiekel [bjkiekel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:40 PM
To: Board
Cc: Jonathan Kahnoski
Subject: Sunriver
To Deschutes County Commissioners:
I am writing this note to assure that my name is added to the growing list of people who WANT to see the mall at
Sunriver grow and be an integral part of the fast growing community in South Deschutes County. There are over
16,00 people here who are looking to you to bring Sunriver and the mall into the service to the entire area. The mall is
issue is not just a a Sunriver issue. The future of the mall and Sunriver is an issue for all of the south county and there
are many people who want the mall rezoned so we can proceed into the next decade. Do not let the people who have
no plan to SAVE Sunriver have their negative way when they have no plan other than to stop progress. Thank you.
With Respect,
Rev. Jack L. Kiekel
A resident of Sunriver.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homep4ge.
Page l of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: satherltec@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 122 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Sunriver Mall
I am a Sunriver owner who lives in the Portland area and cannot be at either hearing for the proposed mall. I am not sure if this is
appropriate to write to you regarding my feelings on the proposed mall, but please let me express that until the parking structure
goes, ample parking is provided close to the market, and many of the condos go away, I will not vote in favor of this proposal. The
mall definitely needs refurbishing, but not to the point where it takes away the reason I love the place ...this is Sunriver, not a strip
mall Bend or an upscale place like Bridgeport in Lake Oswego that has ridiculous parking problems. This is our precious Sunriver
where we come to let our hair down and rejuvenate in the peace.
Thank you,
Sara Sather
9 Poplar
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jonathan Kahnoski Ukahnoski@sunrivertelecom.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:31 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Cc: ultimatewellness@ultimateone.net; Bergen & Jan Bull; David Lewis; Douglas Seator; Mark Smuland;
jgoodman@pctadvisors.com
Subject: Query
Terri -
Good morning and my compliments to you this morning
Do you know if the County Commissioners will have the opportunity to visit the Sunriver Village Mall sometime during the process
of considering SilverStar's application? I know there are legal constraints on them all piling into a county vehicle for a held trip
down here. However, I believe they should see the Village Mall for themselves, especially during the week. Rather than listening
to people tell them what the conditions are or are not, they can see for themselves the conditions of the buildings, visual impact of
vacant store fronts and empty plazas, the crowded and busy Country Store, etc.
I confess I am in favor of SilverStar's proposal. However, I recognize it would be inappropriate for SilverStar to "host" the
Commissioners for a tour. That should not mean the Commissioners, probably individually, cannot come to see for themselves,
perhaps with you or one of your staff as a guide. I assume, here, that their role in this process is like that of a jury in that they may
consider only the "evidence" put before them by the two sides. I believe you said they were in "legislative mode" which should
mean they can take "fact-finding junkets", yes?
Long years of leadership and decision-making during my career in the National Guard taught me that you should recon the ground
for yourself whenever you can in order to be able to make the best decisions. I hope the Commissioners have the opportunity to
apply this principle as well.
Best regards,
Jonathan
3/27/2008
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Beve/Jack Kiekel [bjkiekel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:30 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Cc: Jonathan Kahnoski
Subject: Sunriver
TO Terri Payne:
Terri, I am not going to make an elaborate speech or argument for the rezoning of the Sunriver Mall. It NEEDS to
happen. The opposition operates under the banner of "Save Sunriver" but they have no plan as to how to save it. They
simply want stoppage an stagnation. Please place your energy toward the passing the the zone approval for Sunriver.
With respect,
Dr. Jack L. Kiekel
Sunrvier resident
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
3/27/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Beve/Jack Kiekel [bjkiekel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:25 AM
To: Board
Cc: Jonathan Kahnoski
Subject: Sunriver mall
To the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County:
I am writing this email to you to be sure that name is added to the growing list of people who take a strong position in
favor of the redevelopment of Sunriver Mall. This stance becomes necessary to stop the misinformation being spread
by people who want to stop the development of the Sunriver mall.
Sunriver is a vital part of the life in south Deschutes county and holds a dynamic place to meet the needs of the 16,000
people who live here. The issue that we are now facing is not just a Sunriver issue, it is an issue of stagnation or
growth for all of south county. Please open yourselves to the future and allow for the rezoning of the mall so we can
proceed with dreams and plans.
With respect,
Rev. Jack L. Kiekel
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jim Harnish [theharnishes@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:28 AM
To: Board
Subject: "Save Sunriver" not being truthful
Hello Commissioners,
On my way back fro Mt. Bachelor today( 3/26) I was listening to the KBND news at 5:00 on the radio. They had a big
news article on the Sunriver Mall. I suspect that "Save Sunriver" is writing their script because they said that Silver Star
wants to "tear down the mall and build HIGH RISE CONDOS..." I think HIGH RISE to be in the neighborhood of 10
stories or something like that !
They also had a "Save Sunriver" spokesperson on tape saying that the mall was fine and none of the buildings have
been condemed so why tear down good buildings.
This "Save Sunriver" group is stooping to more exaggerations and untruths. Please keep this in mind as you get
information from them.
Respectfully,
Jim Harnish
2 Muir
Sunriver
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Sandra Roberts [sand raoski22003@yahoo.coml
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:00 PM
To: Board
Subject: SUNRIVER MALL
Dear Commissioners,
My husband and I are homeowners in Sunriver. Our family has enjoyed visiting Sunriver since the 1970's. We enjoy
the varied aspects of the area, including the opportunity to stroll, brouse, dine and shop in the Sunriver Mall. To my
mind having a lively and thriving mall in a resort area like Sunriver is essential, both to serve permanent residents and
entice and entertain visitors.
Our family spends five to six weeks a year in Sunriver. Over the last several years I have witnessed the malls status go
from thriving to struggling. The condition of the common area and the buildings are in dire need of upgrade. The
Mall has become a negative to the resort in its present condition.
As you know a large majority of property owners favor the SilverStar Development plan to re-zone the mall area.
I strongly support the Silverstar application and its plan to upgrade the mall. The addition of some residential to the
area is necessary to make the entire project feasible.
I would request that you grant the re-zoning application.
Thank you
Sandra J. Roberts
36 Stoneridge Townhomes
Sunriver, OR
permanent address:
229 Whispering Dr.
Grants Pass, OR 97527
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: donald roberts [oskibearme@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:39 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall----zoning change application
Dear Commissioners,
I am a Sunriver property owner. I wholeheartedly support the zoning change application of
SilverStar Development.
I began visiting the Sunriver development in the early 1970's. My visits became more
frequent and I eventually purchased property there. I have witnessed the prolonged and
accelerating deterioration of the Sunriver Mall with great sadness. At the present time I
would characterize the mall as blighted.
A strong majority of Sunriver property owners favor the proposed development plan of
SilverStar. The re-zoning sought by SilverStar will allow it to redevelop the mall. The
use of a small portion for additional residential units will enhance the atea and make the
whole project a great success.
Sunriver needs a strong mall area to maintain its reputation as a resort community that is
first rate.
Without a vibrant retail area visitors will be less likely to come. without it property
values surrounding the mall will fall. Keeping property values high will enhance real
property revenues.
I request that after due consideration you spprove the re-zoning request.
Donald Roberts
36 Stoneridge Townhomes
Sunriver, OR
permanent address
229 Whispering Dr.
Grants Pass, OR 97527
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: David Jendro [djendro@jendrohart.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:32 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver/Silverstar
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners,
This letter is to express my support for Silverstar's plan to revitalize the village at Sunriver.
As a full-time resident of Sunriver and the owner of a business located just outside of Sunriver I believe it is absolutely necessary
that something substantial be done to the village at Sunriver, and it must be done soon. If not, given all of the choices potential
visitors have, I fear that Sunriver as well as Deschutes County in general will suffer economically.
I urge you to act as quickly as possible on Silverstar's proposed plans.
Thank-you.
Sincerely,
David J. Jendro
18160 Cottonwood Road #144
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
David J. Jendro
Jendro & Hart, LLC
18160 Cottonwood Rd., #214
Sunriver, OR 97707
Office: (541) 593-3541
Fax: (541) 593-3571
3/26/2008
Carl Jansen
P 0 Box 3577
Bend, Oregon 97707
593-2777
carj@searchna.com
March 25, 2008
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton, Michael Daly
From: Carl Jansen, Spring River Resident
Subject: SilverStar Destinations Rezone Approval for Sunriver Village
Dear Commissioners:
As a Spring River resident since 1998, Senior Spring River Road District
Commissioner since 2000, and President of the Upper Deschutes River Coalition
since 2006, 1 would encourage you to approve the rezoning of the Sunriver Village
property currently owned by SilverStar Destinations.
We live outside of Sunriver and many of our friends and neighbors patronize the
stores, restaurants, and bank in the Village. I live only 2 miles west of the Village.
The current Village buildings are 40 years old and the infrastructure is deteriorating
rapidly. We support SilverStar's plan to upgrade the Village for use by visitors and
residents throughout the Greater Sunriver area.
Please approve SilverStar Destination's rezoning proposal.
Sincerely,
006ZI-* 4"_02-41~
Carl Jansen
LAURA E. HARVEY
POST OFFICE BOX 3494
SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707
541-593-3162
March 22, 2008
Deschutes County Commissioners
Dennis Luke
Tammy Ba!ney Melton
Mike Daly
1300 N.W. Wall Street
Bend, Oregon, 97701
Re: Sunriver Village Mail Approval
Dear Dennis`/-A
Co-founders of Save Sunriver, Herb Adelman, lives in the State of Virginia, Craig and Suzanne Carver
live in Bakersfield, California and the other petition sponsor that provided SROA and the Deschutes
County Planning Commission with petitions signed by 73% non-Sunriver owners, lives in Salem, Oregon.
These self-interested people have spread a great deal of misinformation, fear and lies to other
uninformed non-resident owners.
They have completely different personal goals than resident owners, surrounding community citizens,
tourists and those that visit often. Their life styles are different during their brief stays than the
concerned citizens who frequent the services provided by the Sunriver Mall. The distant owners come
here to partake in relaxing vacations, and now fracturing Sunriver. They never shop at the Mall, which
thousands in the area are dependent on. The Save Sunriver and others have spoken and written that the
Mall is not needed by them at all, and they would never go to the New Mall, as they never go to the
existing Mall. Yet they say it would be to crowded? All co-founders have personally stated this fact to
me.
They are the stated minority, but very verbal and active in this DIVISIVE process. They have never
gone through the open doors to discuss their PLANS with SilverStar, regardless of numerous invitations.
They are in favor of refurbishing the Mall, but that is all. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??
THERE HAS BEEN AND STILL IS AN ONGOING PUBLIC PROCESS PROVIDED BY SROA,
SILVERSTAR AND THE COUNTY, WHICH HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR THEIR PLANS.
YET THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING BUT WRITTEN COMPLAINTS! They would continue
to Celebrate if the entire Mall were condemned, as they hate the tourists, and have worked hard to insure
that no more come here, now that they own here. They intentionally came here to change our
community to suit their requirements. The complainers have also succeeded in driving permanent
residents away in this process, and driving our property values down. The permanent residents of
Sunriver have pined for more permanent residents for the 22 years that I have been here.
The DIVISIVE INTERLOPERS have tried their best to actually destroy Sunriver, because they don't care
about anything, but themselves, and coming to a place where there is no people. Especially Herb
Adelman who lived and worked at his Tort legal practice in New York City!
They actually want this Paradise for themselves and would not have a clue how to think about the big
picture. They do not know what "WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SUNRIVER, THE
COMMUNITY', even means. They have never thought about the many factors that combine to keep the
lights on in Sunriver. They definitely cannot conceive of the rest of us who adamantly want and need the
New Mall!
.n:
MAR ^2 r7 200f
i/:iRG' t (i;t,i F1; S S iv ii",
ADMINISTRATION
LAURA E. HARVEY
POST OFFICE BOX 3494
SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707
541-593-3162
Page 2
The present Mall was built quickly, expeditiously, cheaply, and by a multitude of people, we now call
subs, maintenance people, skages and whoever was around, that were not skilled in the Construction
Trades. Comers were cut, 2008 building techniques, codes and safety issues did not exist and much of
the resulting Construction was inferior according to today's standards. That is what the General
Contractors had to contend with. If any County building department existed, which it did not, Sunriver
was to far away anyway. Nothing was organized 40 years ago, and all these years later the buildings
need to be torn down. This is a given, and at least one building will be bulldozed very soon. All
sustained severe damage this winter, which only expanded on the damage from the past 40 winters.
Dan Kehoe, the original Builder and Mall Owner concurs with all that I have written here. The opposition
is not capable of considering these types of factors.
IF THE OPPOSITION WILL NEVER GO TO THE NEW MALL, THEN WHY EVEN CONSIDER THEIR
RHETORICAL COMPLAINTS?
The opposition to the New Mall has spent the last years configuring and fabricating lies and
misinformation instead of putting their heads together to constructively contribute to the planning of the
New Mall. Heaven forbid, they could have presented their plans for the New Mall. No one was stopping
them from contributing. Instead they have fabricated even more complaints. When they did not get
their way, they sued the homeowners to restrict OUR rights! This is what a Tort Attorney does.
Adelman's followers have totally lost their way. They voted for a Ghetto and hurt SROA financially.
We are hoping the SROA Board will put the land sale issue to a vote again, but now they have a
Frivolous Lawsuit to contend with. We desperately need the income from the Land Sale.
Their way is certainly not a path we can follow, as it only leads to the destruction for Sunriver. You
cannot let this happen!!!! SilverStar is the Developer, not Adelman nor his followers. Please let
SilverStar Develop.
The majority of owners have great aspirations for the future and longevity of Sunriver and are in favor of
the New Mall. Most are able to disseminate the misinformation, and think for themselves, but many are
not, and leave their thinking to someone else, and are only able to look at the save Sunriver information,
instead of the SROA, SilverStar and "Sunriver Scene" information and articles.
I have included some articles that I have written over time which contain only facts.
I am counting on your Expansive Wisdom to Vote in favor of the SilverStar Town Center Application in
order that we can proceed with the beginning of a Future for Sunriver!
Most Sincerely,
Laura E. Harvey
Sunriver Home Owner
For 22 years.
c,c: SilverStar, SROA Board, Citizens For Sunriver.org,
photos, newspaper articles.
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
JSL
6--
J
i
V
` I
a
CA_
%
'
~
6
-~x
m
d~
ti:.
E
~ I
I
C
W
t
O
I
o
a
=
c I
9
a -
C 3
O
0
YOU VOTED DOWN SILVERSTAR'S PLANS - WELL, SHOW US YOURS!
The Village Mall buildings that were damaged this winter have hazards and severe
deterioration that cannot be repaired economically. Bella Cucina restaurant, Bldg. 3, is
one such building and the business has been forced to move out. Given the dilapidated
state of the rest of the mall's buildings, there will be more! If the 1,401 no votes in the
land sale ballot were cast to try to force SilverStar to repair the present buildings, it won't
happen! Instead, the opposition voted for a ghetto!
The close failure of the land sale vote hurt only SROA and all Sunriver property owners!
(The MAJORITY voted FOR the land sale but they fell short of the 60% needed.) We
desperately needed that money for major Sunriver improvements. Your elected SROA
Board initially negotiated a comprehensive deal with SilverStar that included the sale of
bits and pieces of worthless common land adjacent to the mall. This sale would have
funded a relocation of Beaver Drive to its original path to act as an efficient bypass of
through traffic around the mall, expansion of bike paths, and the construction of a traffic
circle at Beaver and Abbot Drives, our most congested intersection! But thanks to the
shortsightedness of the "Save Sunriver" opposition, that's all gone now_ The status quo
lives on!
I am hopeful that SROA will put the land sale back up for a vote, assuming that
SilverStar has any continued interest in pursuing development of the Village mall. But
I'm not very optimistic that this will happen.
So what's next? Well, I challenge all of you minority owners who are part of "Save
Sunriver" (you KNOW who you are!) and didn't like SilverStar's plans, to cough up your
own! After all your complaining, put your money where your mouth is! Submit your
mall development qualifications, architectural drawings, engineering plans, artist
renderings, financial and funding plans, and offer of amenities to SROA for presentation
to the rest of the Sunriver owners at SROA's annual meeting in August 2008. It's high
time you allowed the rest of us to judge your credibility and qualifications to determine
OUR future plans for Sunriver!
D)0 C E k
2 7 2008 i
BOARD OF COhiMi RS
AINISTRATION
LAURA E. HARVEY
POST OFFICE BOX 3494
SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707
541-593-3162
LAURA E. HARVEY
P.O. BOX 3494
SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707
Phone: 541-593-3162 / Fax: 541-593-6240
Email: retreats u:sunriverretreats.com
March 9, 2008 CHORUS OF ONE
OWNER VOTE FAILURE NEWS FLASHES
WHAT IS AN "UPGRADED MALL"?
The Mall Buildings that were damaged and fell down this winter have been found to have hazards that cannot be
dealt with. No repairs are therefore allowed. Bella Cucina, Bldg. 3 is one such building and business affected.
This investigation covered all of the old Mall buildings. The 1,401 No votes, if cast to force SilverStar to repair
the present buildings were cast in error. Instead the opposition voted for a ghetto!
Your Celebrations, Glory for an unfair fight, based on self-interest, back-fired on each of you, and over time, your
divisive power struggle has succeeded in driving more permanent residents away, with only 12%, (504 homes) of
the ownership being permanent now! A drastic decline! ! What have you accomplished?????
The close failure of the Land Sale Vote hurt only SROA and Owners! The Mall Commercially Zoned Land is not
saleable to anyone otherwise. We desperately needed the money for Sunriver improvements/amenities, traffic
circle. The initial SilverStar plan was not affected by the Owners Vote!
Kudos to the fabricated mis-information and lies spread by the "Save Sunriver" elderly attorneys, whose lawsuit
has put us over our legal budget by $29,000.00 so far! With the "Save Sunriver" attorney, Bob Lovlien,
erroneously stating, Dec. 13, 2007 to the Planning Commission "the existing commercial zone was never
intended to be Residential". While the 2"d stories of the existing Mall Buildings' residential Condos sit
_mostly empty (to rot) built according to the original Town Center County approval! Opposition Attorney
speak requires a license!
The elected SROA Board/Attorneys/Advisors initially negotiated a safer and more comprehensive plan with
SilverStar, which included sale of inside Mall commercial/common land, moving Beaver Drive from the Core area
to its original location, retention of bike path, with SROA traffic circle at Abbott & Beaver Dr., (planned for many
years)! We are hopeful that SROA will put the Land Sale back up for a vote, depending on any interest now on the
part of SilverStar. Only an approval vote can generate the requested Mall Plans!
I therefore invite all of the following documented expert owners to submit their qualifications, "Updated" and/or
Town Center Mall Plans, to include, their Mall Development qualifications, Architectural Drawings, Engineering
Plans, Artists Renderings, Financial Lending Institutions Capabilities/Pledge, to SROA for presentation to the
Aug. 2008 owners annual meeting. It is high time you allowed all of us to view your expertise: (list not limited).
Herb/Betty Addelman, Carvers, C. Webb, Schlumpf, Sobel, Lampert, Liel, DeKlotz, ].Asp, T. Willis, Websters,
Yoders, B.Sifferle, D.Strong, Rossmans, D.kreid, K.Hemingway, P.Guay, M.Des Georges, Goodmans, J.Gilbert,
Fletchers, L.Englund, S.Picking, Coreys, Carson, Buzans, Bolins, D.Barnes, T.Allen, T.Smith, S.Zaik, B.Pennel,
M.Hutchison, D.Hutchison, M.Fingerit, H.Barragar, Kempf, A.Krane, S.Needley, J.Holland, L.Weber, M.Gunn,
Arnolds, M.Oventher, Ken?, H.Finck, R.Jenkins, J.Warrick, L.Kramer, T.Gunn, C.Day, E.Douthit, Russells,
L.Read, M.Croal, Nelsons, W.Niosi, Kalbfelds, .D.Danner, S.Alston, S.Bouhaben, J.Hutchison, J.Haskell, G.Kirk,
Jodi F.?, Smiths, R.Burbank, W.Dost, G.Joelson, Phillips, Sutter-Kurz, Roystons, Rossmans, Berauds, R.Fulton.
Pattersons, Weems, E.Lavery, D.Mahoney, R.Youmans, D.Fellers, Erickson, Livingston, Zants, C.Barrett,
Summers, R.Fike, S.Hopkins, J.Economus, Gearharts, Leals, Scotts, and etc.
Laura E. Harvey ® LE
Owner
.F_
Iv! A 2 2008
i
ADMINISTRATION
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived).
C4 b py Ks cr cr w K R',a b o S a• ca v a t
~ Ste? R pm FAN, ,,.b 0 ~
P p s re ~ryi a .1
IV
' 40
M
ig yam r~°~
.c
um I Er N
Iffii9gurf
w st o g o
t N •3` r.
o s o
°•s g;y
t; let a G
no.
. af]' /•3.
O. c7 C1. (Fp{ ( r_ ±^y Q(f. pyp~p ''r' . NO
a,.~! Qj,~~~` ~ P• ~ • o p ~ p rte. ~ a m m
Gi-
N" Era
F~ R ~ SQ {L ~ ~ 1d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l x~t FPS ~y~'. ~ ~
~n '`O O .ty rp' .~.i Lei t+ w j •
u
_ ro ~~o'~ d7aroweom 'b~~'~`$'~~ Kx~`fa~~~•v~~?6 ~P"'•e~,~. F?.yv-~~"
Fit,
.^^^HHH33S op g " A• u - Fr
,-r a
y~ Q w f1 Ff'
y `C ~•t] ,C~ ~~1~ ~ M ~~.~j L~7 ~~o p w or p• ~t~r,~ •d 61
HI die 0
-C3 L3
G Pr
EF -Rag,
A 1-fin Oxf in
aka" p soh
4
Vi F
P. r-
`ta
N
Q
0
February 09, 2007
LAURA E. HARVEY
POST OFFICE BOX 3494
SUNRWER, OREGON 97707
PHONE - 541-593-3162 FAX - 541-593-6240
SHOCKING PHONE CALL
I had received alot of positive feedback and support for the new Sunriver Mail Project regarding my Jan.
"SCENE"' "Chorus of One' article, although, I did receive a Shocking phone call from a new home owner
Jan. 24th, from Bakersfield, Calif., Suzanne Carver, who purchased the 2 story, 3000 sq. ft_ plus #7
Goldfinch in May of 2005, for a second home. She and her husband, entirely gutted the structure, cut
down trees and Sun Forest Construction added a Massive , Complicated 2,648 sq. ft. for a Major, 5,660
sq. ft. Extensive Construction Project, which completed in Dec. 2006.
Suzanne does not want the new Mail Project, nor one more car allowed in Sunriver, nor any more
people. She is only concerned about how SHE would get out of Sunriver, so she could shop at Fred
Meyer. She has never, nor will SHE ever shop at the Mall, nor support the Mall Merchants. She blamed
her many imagined traffic problems on me, irregardless of All of the Wonderful road, Sunriver Entrance,
Spring River Road and Highway 97 Interchange projects that are and will be undertaken.
My attempted conversation regarding the future of Sunriver, For The Good of the Whole Entity, The New
expanded Mall Parking and etc. whet very badly, as her conversation could not be called a 2 way
exchange. Her Vicious, Malicious attack was Unwarranted and Unfounded. I was not able to conclude a
civil, nor rationale conversation.
Her HYPOCRACY was SHOCKING! We cannot make Improvements, Nor Remodel for the Greater
Good of the Future of our WONDERFUL SUNRIVER COMMUNITY AND ALL OF OUR FUTURES, only
She can undertake a mammoth Construction Project.
She had Information that I had taken a huge payoff from the new Mall Owners representative, John
Goodman to write my own blindly Supportive opinion driven "Chorus of One" article in the Jan. "SCENE".
Her Bribery accusations were an obsession with her, as was her idea that the Mall visitors would have to
park on Highway 97, even though the new Mall will end up with more parking places than the present
Mall. Working together was certainly not an option on her end.
Her Bribery Obsession, not knowing one thing about me, was an abhorrent accusation, and revealed that
there are actually owners here that could fabricate and spread such Lies and Destructive Divisiveness.
Jan. 24th was a sad day for Sunriver with owners with absolutely no Vision, Morals nor Scruples to
defame the character of their imagined advisaries. For What beneficial purpose I ask? What possesses
a person to even think such outrageous and guttural thoughts with malice?
I met John Goodman briefly at the Feb. 4th Chamber dinner and spoke to him for the first time.
With the new Bus Service to Bend, those of us that will increase the new Mall population and parking
congestion may not even need cars in our elder years anyway. I also wish to thank John Fettig for his
informative Feb. article and thats no BRIBE!
LAURA E. HARVEY
593-3162
2008
BOARD OF COM-~MIsStLNERS
ADW41SIRATION
Laura E. Harvey
P.O. Box 3494
Sunriver, Oregon 97707
541-593-3162
Chorus of One
December 30, 2007
It is apparent that not all owners, the 3 retired attorneys and their non-owner members
want what is best for the critical future of Sunriver. Dennis Kreid and others wrote that
we should wait for alternative plans for the New Mall, completely ignoring the fact that
SilverStar happens to own the Mall. These people have waited the 2 years of endless
planning to start their opposition to the New Mall, with lies. They wish to see Sunriver
go to ruin, promote further decline of property values, room tax revenues decline,
tourists disappear, more merchants disappear, more restaurants close, cut backs on all
SROA services, incl. Fire, Police, maintenance, etc., employees laid off, service
businesses to close, SROA strapped for money with declining revenues from the rental
managers, Deschutes County rendered defunct with declining room tax revenues and
declines in property values, which would be the end result if their myopic program
prevails. Sunriver would be rendered inconsequential.
SilverStar and owners have been subjected to false information, lies, innuendos, and
blamed for everything under the sun. The New Mall will not restrict access to the river,
or bike trails, or present swimming pools, or cause too much boat traffic on the
Deschutes River or anything else. They will not take away the squirrels, open spaces,
deer, trees or weather or anything else in the rest of Sunriver. They will not build New
York City on the Mall's 26 acres. It is simply beyond me how any sane person can
believe this type of garbage, considering how much accurate information has been
available from SilverStar, SROA, and the editor of the "Sunriver Scene". If the land
sale fails, so will Sunriver! SilverStar can bring The New Mall and Sunriver into the
21 " Century, leaving the opposition behind, which is where they are now, with not one
shred of truth or fact, in their pg. 12, Dec. "Scene" ad. Why litigate over
technicalities???
Obviously, the new mall will be built in phases, retail space, parking are regulated as
are many other particulars, and, as new merchants / restaurants / services sign up; their
spaces will be completed and opened. Any transportation or parking problems will be
solved. The object is to attract visitors year round and not to have a New Mall full of
empty retail spaces, and SilverStar does have plans for attracting tenants to fill the
retail. This is a given!
I also resent the presentation by "Save Sunriver", the attorneys, that the New Mall
residential will be all rentals, and that SilverStar is in the time-share business. There
may be some privately owned rentals to keep the lights on, with new amenities for them
to use, but many of us plan to live in the New Mall during our declining years, which is
what the myopic have wanted for years, more permanent residents. I will have my
Page 2
garage and parking spaces and will be perfectly happy, self sufficient and content with
my new home! Everything will be convenient for us with many new luxuries,
amenities, activities, shopping, new friends and lots of tourists to interact with. I am
sick of all of the after-the-fact whining, complaining and outright lies being spewed by
the agenda Driven, self-appointed, destructive, narrow minded, who wish to deprive my
friends and I of our rights and our future, most, who cronalogically will not even be
here by completion, 10 years.
The New Mall will not affect the rest of Sunriver in the slightest. It will definitely save
our spiraling decline in property values and lack of buyers although! The benefits to
SROA are self-evident and, our salvation!
South County and Oregon desperately need the New Mall and the Partners and
Educated, Knowledgeable staff of SilverStar will not let us down. The Home Owners
cannot let us down either. It is time everyone threw their energy into the promotion and
support of the New Mall and vote Yes for the SROA commercial land property sale, so
that SilverStar can move forward with design plans, land use permits, more permits and
construction. SilverStar and SROA have stated that it is all or nothing with the
property sale, they will not build a New Mall with Beaver drive running through it, no
matter what all of the self appointed soothsayers say. Who should you believe????
I seriously doubt that any of the newly acclaimed mathematicians are privileged to the
financial projections or check book of SilverStar, or their financial package. It is
embarrassing when land purchase costs, owner presentation costs, delays, architectural
expense, advertising, artists renderings, demolition of buildings, concrete/ asphalt/
paver removal and installation costs, tenant relocation costs, construction costs,
power/water/sewer installation costs, HVAC costs, drainage (snow) costs, underground
parking excavation costs, roofing costs, fire escapes, fees, payroll for 10 years and
beyond / interest expense, tree purchase and installation, landscaping costs, sprinkler
system costs, loss of present mall costs, engineering costs, possible lawsuits, travel and
per diem costs, interior decorating costs, paint, stone, lumber, lighting, appliances,
bathtubs, faucets, etc. costs, elevator costs, consultant costs, base materials costs, road
construction, new state of the art grocery store, Restaurant kitchen costs, construction
of swimming pools / ice arena and other amenities and hundreds more were all ignored.
It is time to wake up to reality!
The opposition proposes no future, no vision, no plans, no investment, yet they wish to
tell SilverStar how to run their Mall Development / Landlord / Tenant business, dictate
how much money they can make, (or lose), demand reduced residential with no
investment and spew lies to the uninformed and gullible. I ask for what end result? I
prefer to let the involved, risk takers, informed, truthful, expert professionals run their
own business, which is the American way, and the future of Sunriver, and not be
subjected to unconscionable, ugly, confining, false, destructive rumors. For 18 years
Page 3
we have been complaining about the Mall, #1 priority. A viable plan is finally in place
with residential to support the merchants and yet the complaining continues. I do not
wish to be saved by retired attorneys!
Laura E. Harvey - Non-resident - Business Owner
22 year SR Homeowner and previous resident.
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jonathan Kahnoski bkahnoski@sunrivertelecom.comj
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:47 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Suggestion - Second Try
Good morning, Commissioners, and my compliments to you this morning. My apologies, but a hasty mouse click sent my email
before I had completed my thoughts. Here is the full correspondence.
As a full-time resident of Sunriver of some years, I hope, having performed your due diligence, you will conclude the application of
SilverStar Destinations, LLC for a new Town Center zoning merits your approval.
As I wrote to Ms. Payne, my career experience in the National Guard instilled in me the conviction there is no substitute for doing
your own reconnaissance on the ground. Hence, I suggest you find an appropriate way to visit the Village Mall for yourselves and
see the empty plazas and vacant store fronts. I firmly believe the old saw - a picture, or seeing it for yourself, is worth a thousand
words.
Now, I am aware that two or three of you can't just can't load up in a county vehicle and go on a field trip to Sunriver. You have
busy schedules and there are laws and regulations governing public meetings and proper public notice. Perhaps you would have
to come singly. However, if something can be arranged and still be within both the spirit and the letter of the law, I think it would
be very helpful to you.
I would be happy to facilitate your visit(s). While I have an opinion, I am professional enough to keep them private and provide
you with a neutral escort at the Village. If there is any way I can help, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Jonathan Kahnoski
#2 Paper Birch Lane, Sunriver, OR 97707
18160 Cottonwood Rd, #162, Sunriver, OR 97707
H: 541.598.2047
C: 503.936.8979
-
----17N --OY
373
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Al Braemer [abraemer@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:38 PM
To: Board
Cc: Doug Seator
Subject: Village at Sunriver
To: Mike Daly
Tammy Melton
Dennis Luke
We are writing to you to request your support of Silver Star Destination's plans to replace the present deteriorating
buildings in the Village at Sunriver (formerly the Sunriver Mall) with entirely new residential and business
structures.
We have both served on the Sunriver Service District Managing Board jU During that time we confronted and
solved many of Sunriver's challenges including formation of the District, defining the authority of Sunriver Police
to enforce Oregon's traffic laws and negotiating contracts with the new fire and police unions. We view the present
state of the Village at Sunriver as the major problem that our community now faces. The buildings are not only
deteriorating externally but an electrical fire in September 2006 and recent flooding due to burst water pipes
demonstrates the electrical and plumbing systems are unreliable. Upgrading the systems is economically
impossible. Our firemen assume that we can expect future fires from faulty wiring. The fire in 2006 was contained
at a time with little wind. A similar fire in late afternoon in the summer could cause a situation that could spread
and cause evacuation.
The Village at Sunriver is the first place many visitors see when they visit Sunriver as they deal with rental
agencies, real estate companies or eat at our restaurants. The impression of a run-down area is not good and unless
changed can result in fewer visitors and property purchases. The long-term effect would be falling property values
leading to a reduction in property taxes coming from Sunriver. Also, lower occupancy of rental units would reduce
occupancy tax collections. (Sunriver is the major source of this revenue to the county.) Silverstar's proposal results
in an estimated investment of $250 million in buildings and improvements that will increase property values. Also
there will be additional rental properties thus increasing the occupancy tax revenues.
We encourage your swift action on Silver Star's request for new regulations for a Town Center District in Sunriver.
Thank you.
Doug Seator
Allen Braemer
M Doug Seator August 2004-2007 Vice-chair 2004, Chair 2005-2007
Allen Braemer August 2002-2007 Vice-chair 2005-2007
FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!
1 t 7
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: Scott Dauenhauer [scott@meridianwealth.com)
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:39 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Re-Zone
I am a homeowner along with my parents in Sunriver and we support the re-zoning of the
mall and surrounding area - please vote to approve the re-zone.
Scott
Scott Dauenhauer, CFP, MSFP, AIF
President
Meridian Wealth Management
www.meridianwealth.com
Scott@meridianwealth.com
949-916-6238
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Randy Egertson [egertson@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:42 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Revitalization
Dear Commissioners Tammy, Dennis and Mike-
Diane and I fully support the necessary zoning changes to allow Silverstar to redevelop our
Sunriver Mall. We have lived in Sunriver for over 12 years and watched as the old mall has slowly
deteriorated. We believe that the mall redevelopment is in the best long term interest of all the
owners of Sunriver and other area residents and businesses. Please proceed with approval of the
required changes being requested by Silverstar. Thank you.
Randy & Diane Egertson
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: Bonnie Campbell [bonnie_campbell@hermanmiller.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver mall
Attachments: pic29780.jpg
pic29780Jpg (20
KB)
Please know that as a Sunriver homeowner, I am in full support of the sale of the 6 acres
in order for the mall development to continue.
While everything has pluses and minuses, the mall redo must happen.
Thank you for your support.
Bonnie Campbell
(Embedded image moved to file: pic29780.jpg)
-
Terri Hansen Pavne
From:
GwennMcDonald@Boiselnc.com
Sent:
Friday, March 28, 2008 2:48 PM
To:
Board
Subject:
Support of proposed revitalization of Sunriver
Commissioners Luke, Melton and Daly:
I am writing to support the rezoning of Sunriver. My husband John Baird and I have been
homeowners since 1990. We've watched the mall area deteriorate for many years now and
know how empty the mall is during certain seasons. We believe that the proposed zone
change will allow for a development concept that will support year-round economic
opportunity for tenants and merchants alike.
The project proposed by SilverStar Destinations will revitalize the Sunriver core and put
Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest destination. We urge you to approve the
request for rezoning!
Gwenn McDonald and John Baird
#5 Ribes
Sunriver OR 97707
541-593-6334
10274 W. Cranberry Ct.
Boise, ID 83704
208-375-7427
Attachment 6
Public Comments
2-5-08 through 3-31-08
0. 0 r, t rte, urC* CV
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: John Weisel Utweisel@teleport.coml
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:12 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver
Please support opportunity to re-vitalize and redevelop Sunriver. We pay a lot of taxes and don't get much for it, so
give us a break, and support redevelopment plans.
John T. Weisel
Medford and Sunriver OR
itweisel .charter net
itweisel a~teleport.com
jtweisel @mac.com
3/317200'8
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Bob & Kathy Burroughs [rbkb@teleport.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:29 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Proposal
We would like to ask Deschutes County to approve the rezoning request from Silverstar so they may proceed with
the development of the new mail/residential area in Sunriver. We are permanent homeowners in Sunriver and are very
much in favor of Silverstar's proposed mall project. We believe it will be a wonderful addition to Sunriver. Please pass
Silverstone's rezoning request.
Regards,
Robert and Kathleen Burroughs
#19 Modoc
Sunriver
541-593-6692
3>3 I L2-YO8
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Michael Kiriazis [MKiriazis@cmdagency.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:32 PM
To: Board
Subject: Please help Sunriver
I've been a homeowner in Sunriver for years.
It saddens me that the proposal for the redevelopment got narrowly voted down last month. I think that the
vocal minority spread propaganda and a negative smear campaign against the developer, SilverStar.
The facts are pretty clear.
. The MAJORITY of homeowners want a redeveloped Sunriver Village (the measure failed even though
a majority of homeowners voted for it).
. The Village is in disrepair and research has shown that it is keeping visitors and potential homeowners
away from Sunriver:
. The Village, I feel is a safety hazard with its antiquated infrastructure.
. There are many new resorts and developments coming to central Oregon. If we don't capitalize on this
opportunity, this wonderful community will slowly rot away.
. The economy is in a recession (or whatever you want to call it). The redevelopment of the mall will be
a boost to the central Oregon economy.
Please don't allow the opposition ruin this great opportunity for the MAJORITY of Sunriver Homeowners. We
WANT and welcome the change and we need your support.
Thanks
Michael Kiriazis Account Director 503.488.4447
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Joel and Carol Rose Docarose@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:45 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall zone change
ATTN: DENNIS LUKE, TAMMY MELTON, MIKE DALY
We want to voice our desire for the needed zone change to accommodate rebuilding the
Sunriver Mall. It is an outdated eyesore. A mere
update will not provide the needs of Sunriver and surrounding areas.
A total revitalization is required to breathe new life into our community.
The Sunriver Mall offers the only business/retail mix in our immediate community. A
totally revitalized mall will appeal to residents and non-residents alike for their
shopping and entertainment needs.
The proposed zone change would allow for a village that offers more retail shopping and
residential options, which will create more jobs and bring more revenue to the county. I
have had people tell me that they do not visit Sunriver anymore because the mall area is
in such a deteriorated state. We have been to Whistler, BC and are very impressed with
the village concept. It would boost the appeal of Sunriver tremendously - to residents,
visitors and non-residents.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Joel and Carol Rose
53 Red Cedar Lane
Sunriver OR
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Friday, March 28, 2008 7:50 PM
To:
'Tregg Rustad'; Board
Cc:
Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village
Hi Tregg-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating Jo this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
TGiwtwtU (B Liwe1~) Meltoo,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Tregg Rustad [mailto:tregg@treggrustad.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:01 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village
I own in Sunriver and urge you to rezone the area so the redevelopment of the village mall may move forward. Thank you!
Tregg Rustad
Previews Director
Coldwell Banker
Direct - 310/859-6034
Fax - 310/271-3954
www.TreggRustad.com
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's business, confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this
internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to
be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
3%31 /Z
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:49 PM
To: 'Harold & Ann Anderson'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village Development
Hi Harold and Ann-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
TCivi,twtu (-Fnneu) Mel.tov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Harold & Ann Anderson [mailto:handa@bendbroadband.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:31 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Development
We are very disappointed that the needed percentage for approving the redevelopment of Sunriver Village was not reached even
though the measure passed with a majority vote.
We feel it is imperative that the Sunriver Village be revitalized. It should be the hub of activity with visitors to Sunriver and now it is
a disgrace.
We are Sunriver Homeowners and encourage you to rezone the area to allow a mixed use plan for redevelopment.
Thank you.
Harold and Ann Anderson
Bend, OR
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date: 3/28/2008 10:58 AM
K/3172-008
-
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Friday, March 28, 2008 7:43 PM
To:
'Shenny Braemer'; Board
Cc:
Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Villiage at Sunriver
Hi Sharon-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
TG1vu.vut (gGiv1,CU) Me[ton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Shenny Braemer [mailto:sbraemer4@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:21 PM
To: Board
Subject: Villiage at Sunriver
To Commissioners: Daly, Melton and Luke
My name is Sharon Braemer and I have been a full time resident and owner at Sunriver since 1995. I also take an
active interest in making all of Deschutes Co. as good as it can be; I have been a CASA volunteer for over four years.
Like the 56% of Sunriver voters voting for the development of the Village at Sunriver, I believe it will greatly improve
Sunriver for businesses, visitors and -most important to me- property owners. If left on the current decline slope it has
been on for several years, it will be close to a slum very soon. This will not be good for property owners, guests will
stop coming, room tax revenues will go down; I think the eventual outcome is obvious.
Silver Star Destinations plan will turn, what is now rapidly becoming an embarrassment that threatens property values,
into a viable, healthy commercial and residential center for southern Deschutes County. Please do all that you can to
help us save our lovely Sunriver and keep it growing beautifully. Thank you.
Sharon Braemer
li 5 Titleist Lane
Sunriver, OR
)7707
593-4423
sbraemer4@gmail.com
Y/3 172008
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Friday, March 28, 2008 7:42 PM
To:
'S BRANDVOLD'; Board
Cc:
Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: SunRiver Mall
Hi Tom and Nancy-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and
Daly; in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGiwt.vltu (ggvt,eu) meltovi.
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: S BRANDVOLD [mailto:sandybms@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:37 PM
To: Board
Subject: SunRiver Mall
As homeowners, it is of utmost importance to us that the Mall be completely rebuilt and revitalized. It has been
embarrassing to take guests to the Mall for several years due to the decrepit condition. We used to be so proud
of our Mall and frequent it almost daily... now we reluctantly head for Bend. Important funds are leaving our
community and our home values are dropping. We need to bring back our past status as the resort to live at in
Central Oregon.
Tom and Sandy Brandvold
31 McNary Lane
SunRiver
3r~ r2oog
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:56 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Sunriver Mall Re-Development
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea.Bowen@Sun.COM [mailto:Andrea.Bowen@Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:48 PM
To: Board; info@thevillageatsunriver.com; info@citizensforsunriver.org
Subject: {Spam?} Sunriver Mall Re-Development
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners:
I have been very troubled by the recent events and actions taken by the very few (but
legally savvy) owners behind the "Save Sunriver"
organization. Quite frankly, when attorneys use their skills to
represent their own interests over and above the interests of the
greater population, it debases our legal system. They themselves
stated their their primary strategy was to bring enough legal trouble to the Sunriver
Owners Association and Silver Star to weaken them financially. It is a disgusting mis-use
of our legal system by the people who have been trusted to act within the law to represent
those who need representation.
As County Commissioners, you now have a chance to right the wrongs done
to the greater population who supports revitilization of the mall. A
redeveloped Sunriver mall is more important to Deschutes County than
ever before. Deschutes County has been identified by some lenders as
one of the counties where declining home values puts greater risk in the
lending equation. I recently attempted to re-finance my home in
Sunriver as was told it may not be possible given that much of the lending community is
greatly concerned about the risk associated with
lending in Deschutes County. The lack of redevelopment as well as
the failing economy and tight lending environment could easily spiral Sunriver into
failure, dragging Deschutes County even further into the housing recession.
A redeveloped mall would go a long way in proving to the lending community that Decshutes
County is indeed a viable community and will
continue to grow with investment. The majority of Sunriver owners did
approve the redevelopment. I believe that a more up to date voting
method and a longer time to vote would have made the difference.
Please do what you can to move forward with the redevelopment of the mall. Deschutes
County cannot afford to let Sunriver fade away into an empty development full of homes
that have foreclosed on.
Thank you,
Andrea Bowen
#8 whistling Swan
Sunriver, OR 97707
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:43 PM
To: 'jloujean@bendbroad band.com'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: New Zone For SURE please!!!!!
Hi Jean-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
Tawt,wt.u (gOvt,cU) McLtov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: jloujean@bendbroadband.com [mailto:jloujean@bendbroadband.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:05 PM
To: Board
Subject: New Zone For SURE please!!!!!
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: Tammy Melton, Dennis Luke, and Mike Daly
Since we first built our home in Sunriver in 1976 the Mall has been the center of Sunriver . It was a vibrant mall in the
early years with many wonderful stores and businesses to make our lives easy and enjoyable. In later years the mall
started to and continued to just go down hill more each year with paint peeling, stores closing and a completely sad
look to the whole area. It should be completely demolished and a new mixed use plan to include retail, business, and
residential built in its place. We Sunriver folks wish to be proud of our community as we were back in the early days.
A new mall development will allow Sunriver to take its rightful place as a premier resort among others being built in
Deschutes County. It will become a center for residents and non residents to gather and enjoy each other.
It is important for the county to approve a zone change so that Sunriver can be revitalized and bring in new jobs and
new businesses and additional tax revenue to the county. We need to do everything we can in this county to help our
economy to recover from the downhill slide it has taken this year!!!! It would be a shame just to sit on this opportunity
when we can act now to proceed with this positive opportunity. Please give us this chance to make
a REVITALIZED SUNRIVER COMMUNITY a reality. Thank you.
Jean Dillard #8 Mink Lane Sunriver, Oregon
313I%2608 -
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:42 PM
To: 'WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL% Board
Cc: THOMAS TERRY/CAROL; Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Rezoning
Hi William and Susan-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
TG2mn,tu (gGiv~et~) Melt0v,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL [mailto:wmc@sunrivertelecom.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:19 PM
To: Board
Cc: THOMAS TERRY/CAROL
Subject: Rezoning
Dear Commissioners -
Please accept our e-mail as a vote of support for you to accept and approve the change to zoning requested for the Sunriver
Mall. Our Mall should once again be a key component in our community. It needs serious revitalization which can only occur with
approval of the recommended rezoning.
Susan and I would love to witness construction of a new and vital Mall that would not only serve our needs, but also those
of residents, part-time residents, vacationers and numerous other visitors to this wonderful bit of paradise - Sunriver
Sincerely yours,
William M. Campbell
Susan L. Jackson
#85 Meadow House North
Sunriver, Oregon
Sunriver Revitalization Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:41 PM
To: 'Ronald Hunt'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Sunriver Revitalization
Hi Ron and Joyce-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
TgvKwtu (-F po'eu) m6tov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Ronald Hunt [mailto:honrunt@san.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:50 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Revitalization
Commissioners Daly, Luke and Melton,
Kindly give your approval to the zoning required for the revitalization of the Sunriver Village Mall. It is needed badly!
We have been Sunriver owners since 1980 and have watched the deterioration of the current mall over the years, despite the
attempts of two or three owners.
The answer is a new approach such as has been presented by Silverstar.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ron & Joyce Hunt
#5 Rager Mountain Lane
Sunriver, OR
3 3172GU8-
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:41 PM
To: 'Susan Wells'; Board
Subject: RE: support of revitalization of Sunriver
Hi Robert and Susan-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
Tav~tv~tu (bGlviel~) Mel-tavL
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Susan Wells [mailto:swells47@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:11 PM
To: Board
Subject: support of revitalization of Sunriver
To the County Commissioners,
We are part time residents of Sunriver. We own our home at 13 East Park and we are writing to support the revitalization of the
Sunriver Mall. We are in desperate need of some resolution to the deplorable condition of the Sunriver Mall.
Thank you for your consideration,
Robert and Susan Wells
3/3172068
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Friday, March 28, 2008 7:40 PM
To:
'Janice Dost'; Board
Cc:
Tom Anderson
Subject:
RE: Sunriver
Hi Janice-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly; in addition to
forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments
will be added to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: Janice Dost (mailto:nbadjed@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:14 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver
Greetings:
The Sunriver Village mall really needs your help! The mall needs more than a new coat of
paint. It is old and needs to be torn down completely. Any plan that does not call for a
complete demolition of the current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over.
The proposed zone change will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential,
business and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize the
Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest destination.
Please vote for a zone change that will make our business more attractive to those of us
in Sunriver and those who live in Three Rivers and LaPine. Our Village serves them also,
currently very poorly. A central business district that can serve tourists, SR residents,
and area residents as well is important for the business health of southern Deschutes
County.
Please help us help ourselves to more commercial enterprise, to more jobs, and to more
community here in Southern Deschutes.
Janice Dost
Janice Dost
510/ 527-7216 Berkeley
510/ 812-6456 Cell
541/593-1743 Sunriver
Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no
cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:04 PM
To: 'MjoanMyers@aol.com'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: DENNIS LUKE TAMMY MELTONM MIKE DALY
Hi Marilyn-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and
Daly; in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TavKvKlJ, (Kav~,eu) Meltow
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: MjoanMyers@aol.com [mailto:MjoanMyers@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:20 PM
To: Board
Subject: DENNIS LUKE TAMMY MELTONM MIKE DALY
sINCE YOU ARE FAMILIAR BY NOW WITH THE HISTORY OF THE SUNRIVER VILLAGE MALL.i NEED NOT TALK ABOUT
THAT. I HAVE LIVED HERE FULLTIME SINCE1973. tHE MALL FOR MANY YEARS WAS THE COMMERCIAL AND SOCIAL
CENTER OF SUNRIVER,i BELIEVE, THAT THE LIST OF 8 THINGS THAT SILVER STAR IS OFFERING IS POSSIBLE,IN
THE EARLY DAYS WE MET AT THE BAKERY, WHERE WE COULD BREATHE IN THE DELIGHTFUL SMELLS OF FRESH
BREWED COFFEES AND BAKED GOODS NOT FROM THE OVEN. IN THE EVENING, FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE BEERS
WITH FRIENDS AT A SIDEWALK BISTRO, AROMA OF STEAK ON THE GRILL COMING FROM INSICE WITH GUITAR OR
PIANO SOUNDS DRIFT DOWN. I AM SURE YOU HAVE READ ALL 8 ITEMS. A REVITALIZED VILLAGE MALL WITH
SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS, SOME SPECIAL NAME BRANDS, ALONG WITH THE SHOPS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE
AND HAVE SURVIVED. (SUNRIVER SPORTS AND PAPER STATION)
iT IS WONDERFUL THAT SOMEONE- SILVERSTAR HAS OFFERED THE MONEY AND SKILLS TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.
WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL AND I KNOW THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE.
I HOPE THAT YOU REALIZE THAT MANY PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON. DON'T ASK ME
WHY.
dO YOUR BEST TO SUPPORT THE SILVERSTAR PROJECT AND GIVE SUNRIVER A LIFE. THANKS. SINCERELY,
MARILYN MYERS 5 MINK LANE P.O. BOX 3126 5938333i AM MAILING A COPY OF THIS TO YOU IN THE MAIL
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/31/2008
-
Page I of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:04 PM
To: 'Thomas Ped'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village Redevelopment
Hi Tom and Claire-
Please know that I have read both of your emails; and they have been added to the public record. I very much appreciate you
weighing in on this important decision.
In Partnership,
TVLtV,tfJi (gg[AeU) Me[ton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Thomas Ped [mailto:clairetom@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:30 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Redevelopment
To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners:
I am a member of the Sunriver Owners Association Board of Directors, but I speak only as an individual
homeowner in my thoughts below. Our SROA Board speaks as one voice and testifies separately.
In front of you, you have numerous technical issues to be worked out, but in the end, I urge the commissioners
to approve the zoning changes so that the Sunriver village can be redeveloped under the plan submitted by
Silverstar.
Some will say that the recent 'land sale' vote showed that the redevelopment should not proceed, but my wife
and I were one of the 56% of the votes in favor of the land sale. Even though it was not enough to pass in a
super-majority (60% required), I believe it clearly shows that the majority of homeowners want something to
happen to the mall now. People can twist this factual data to their own objectives, but with approximately a
75% turnout for the vote by the homeowners, the MAJORITY, by their vote, want the village to be redeveloped
in this proposed plan. As do I.
I cannot stand by and see this decaying mall continue to deteriorate. The resort has invested millions in
Sunriver to enhance its property and services, many homeowners build new homes or remodel, or otherwise
keep their homes in prime shape, but the village has gone downhill for many years. Black Butte has spent
millions in enhancing their 'older' resort and many new destination resorts have come on the market with
exciting 'new' attributes to sell to new people coming to Central Oregon. Sunriver has to keep up. We need to
be vibrant and competitive, lest my home loses value, plain and simple.
We live in a 'resort', not a gated community. I look forward to the crowds that come to and participate in the
many activities that come to Sunriver like tennis tournaments, golf tournaments, bike races, marathons, and
many individuals that want to come and utilize the bike paths, tennis courts and golf courses. We need to
provide them with excellent opportunities to dine and hang out. An exciting new 'town center' is an addition
that is needed.
373-f 12008
Page 2 of 2
Please provide your approval and good guidance in this process.
Thanks for your service.
Tom Ped
21 Tokatee
Sunriver
-373.172008-
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:01 PM
To: 'Waltnjeri63@aol.com'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: (no subject)
Hi Walt and Jeri-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. 1 am copying Commissioners Luke and
Daly; in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGlwt.wtu (-F'gvue~) Mel,tov"
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Waltnjeri63@aol.com [mailto:Waltnjeri63@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:57 PM
To: Board
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Board Members,
We are for the rebuilding of the Sunriver Mall. It needs to be rezoned to accommodate rebuilding. The Village is too old and
outdated to be remodeled. It needs to be rebuilt.
Thank you, Walt and Jeri Cundiff
Sunriver
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/31%2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:02 PM
To: 'Daryll & Mary Klein'; Board
Cc: Tom Anderson; Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village Mall
Hi Mary and Daryll-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. I am copying Commissioners Luke and Daly;
in addition to forwarding your email on to our Community Development Department so that your comments will be added to the
public record.
In Partnership,
TovWtvtA,u (gav'elu) Me[tovl,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Daryll & Mary Klein [mailto:mklein@cmc.net]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:57 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Mall
To Whom It May Concern,
My husband and I have lived in Sunriver for ten years. We love the area and are continually impressed by the natural beauty of
the area and access to it's many hiking trails and river. Also, the vitality of the Sunriver residents in keeping our area beautiful is
most important. We've been responsible for keeping one of the paths free of litter and shrubery trimed for safety. I started a
garden club for the area to help others learn how to garden in the high desert using native plants. My husband has been
president of the Anglers Club and The Rotary Club and volunteers every weekend at the Second Tern, the local second hand
store. In other words, we love this area and work hard to support a livable community.
We are in favor of the upgrading of the Village Mall. It desperately needs rebuilding for safety reasons ( I worked for the
Sunriver Music Festival when the building our office was located in burned down because of faulty wiring.) and also because of
the number of people who are employed to support the visitors Sunriver attracts each year. With the deteriorating buildings and
walkways, visitors are not impressed enough to frequent the businesses in the Mall. With more attractive and safe buildings,
visitors would be encouraged to eat and shop in the Mall rather than drive into Bend which is good for gas consumption and
highway usage.
We strongly urge you to support the rebuilding of the Village Mall and grant the zoning required.
Sincerely,
Mary and Daryll Klein
22 Yellow Pine Lane, Sunriver
373712008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:52 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: Silverstar
Oops...forgot to forward...
In Partnership,
Tnwt,wt.u (-P'no'cu) Mcl.tov
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Chuck and Bonnie Sperbeck [mailto:cbsperbeck@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Board
Subject: Silverstar
To Whom It May Concern,
We support SilverStar in their efforts to revitalize our Sunriver Mall.
Sincerely,
Bonnie and Chuck Sperbeck
471/208--
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Kayella Simons [kayella@uci.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:41 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Town Center District
TO: Commissioner Dennis Luke
Commissioner Tammy Melton
Commissioner Mike Daly
We are in favor of the text and plan amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to create a Town Center
District in Sunriver.
We feel the proposed development will be beneficial not only to Sunriver but to the entire area.
Stanley J. Simons, M.D.
Kayella Simons
Sunriver Owners - 18 years
Sunriver Property: 3 Meadowlark
Primary Residence: 1233 NW Horn
Pendleton, OR 97801
3/31 %2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: lizs@chamberscable.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:55 AM
To: Board
Subject: Zone Change
I would ask you to support the zone change for the redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall. The
existing structures have to be replaced with new development. Whatever has to be done to
accomplish this must be done. The entire Mall area has become an eye sore to our beautiful
community. Please understand that the voices of the anti development faction are not the
real majority of pro development Sunriver residents. If all the votes could have been
counted, that arrived a day too late, the vote would have passed. Your good judgement and
your ability to make a differnce is needed at this time. I am a former member of the
Planning Commission in Newport, Oregon. I knew that my decisions were not about pleasing a
handful of residents, that in most cases were the vocally opposed, but having the vision
of the impact of my decision years down the road. Visitors and residents of Sunriver will
appreciate the beautification and convenience of a successfull commercial hub.
Thank you in advance for supporting our rezoning needs.
Elizabeth Franklin
#9 Catkin
Sunriver
1
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Hai Pearson [hmpearso@gmail.coml
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:58 AM
To: Board
Subject: support of Sunriver Mall
Dear County Commissioners,
we purchased a second home in Sunriver one year ago. We have enjoyed it very much and wish to see that continues to
be an attractive get away. We believe a new Village will help ensure that Sunriver continues to thrive long into the
future, as our young children grow up and spend many years there. Please support the Village development efforts.
regards, Hai & Hope Pearson
11 Lava Top Lane
3/31/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Susan Harkness-Williams [sunriversister@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:58 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
The purpose of this email is to voice an opinion about the future Sunriver Mall. Our family
wants the old mall deconstructed with a new mall in its place. Sunriver needs the vitality, the
jobs this will create, the tax revenues and the new town center will serve a community larger
than the full time Sunriverites.
I am confident that the revitalization can be done with the least amount of impact on our
beautiful Central Oregon while still giving us a much needed replacement of the delapidated
mall visitors see today.
Susan Harkness-Williams
Sunriver, OR
541 593-2127
541 788 2486 mobile
3/31/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: BEVERLY SHERRER [Beverlysh@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:03 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Mail Zoning meeting
Dear Board Members,
I have lived in Sunriver and the surrounding area of Sunriver for 23 years. I have used the village mall as a
place to gather with friends and family, clients and the all important one, shopping. I have watched the slow
deterioration of the mall with great sadness as I remember so many good times there.
The mall is old and way beyond a spruce up. It needs to be rebuilt so that it will insure future guests to come
and spend their precious family times in Sunriver. It also means more jobs to this area that is so needed by the
locals that live close to Sunriver. I now do most of my shopping elsewhere but would prefer to spend my money
locally if there were the shops there again that was in the past.
We need the zoning change to allow this to happen which will pump money back into this area that is badly
needed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and reading this email.
Beverly Sherrer, Principal Broker
Top 1% in the Nation
23 Year Central Oregon Resident
541-480-7707 cell
541-604-4004 Blackberry
beverlysh(cbmsn.com
www.bevsherrer.com
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Carlson Shirley [sunkidz2@yahoo.com)
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:11 AM
To: Board
Subject: Support for zone change - Sunriver Mall
We strongly support the requested zone change for the Sunriver Mall area to permit redevelopment. The
Mall is in abysmal condition physically as well as economically and needs to be completely razed,
redesigned and rebuilt to become viable in today's marketplace. Redevelopment that includes residential
properties as well as retail and commercial office space is what is now needed.
Your favorable action on the requested zone change for the Sunriver Mall will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gary and Shirley Carlson
17 Oregon Loop
Sunriver, OR
No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users and friends.
3/31/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Pitner, Lee llpitner@sunriverrealty.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:20 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Mall
Dear Commissioners Luke, Melton and Daly,
I have been a Sunriver resident for over 17 years.
I have watched the Mall deteriorate and crumble over the years due to neglect and lack of interest on the
part of the previous owners to invest in it's maintenance and revitalization.
Finally, SilverStar is wanting to do something about this deplorable situation. Sunriver and Deschutes
County desperately need for them to be able to re-develop the mall into a vibrant, attractive and fun place to
go. This will result in higher property values, more jobs and more tax revenue for Deschutes County.
I urge you to approve the zone change that will allow them to accomplish this crucial re-development.
Thank you,
Lee Pitner
8 Rager Mountain Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
3/31/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: dimbears@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:39 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Redevelopment
As a former Sunriver board member and Design Committee chair, I fully support the redevelopmenty of the Sunriver
mall for the folowing reasons.
I . The existing, almost 40 year old mall, is going to begin to adversly affect property values in the community as wel a
turest dollars into the county.
2. With between seven and eleven new destination resorts being developed, Sunriver needs to remain competitive.
3. New jobs and tax dollars will be generated that the existing mall can not due to the run down condition and lack of
business opportunities.
4. A new mall will serve more than simply Sunriver. It will act as a retail and service hub for areas such as Crosswater,
Caldera Springs, and the rest of this growing portion of the county.
5. A recent Sunriver vote evidenced that a majority (57%) of those voting were in favor of the redevelopment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ronald Day
30 Tournament Lane
Sunriver
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Betty4sunriver@cs.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:41 AM
To: Board
Subject: We do not need more condos in Sunriver
Hello Commissioners, We need a revitalized mall but not 400 condos. Only 50 condos at the most. They do not need to tear
everything down. They want to build a new city. We do not need a concentrated condo development. Caldera will develop more
plus the new land that was added. Let the other resorts add but keep our mall a mall. Betty Vincent
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: carter/mcconnell User [bobbcarl @msn.comJ
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:49 AM
To: Board
Subject: Revitalization of the Sunriver Mall
Dear Commissioners:
We are sending this email to inform you of our endorsement of the rezoning necessary to
revitalize the Sunriver mall. Please do what you can to expedite the process.
Bobbie and Carter McConnell
#11 Blue Grouse
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Liz Haberman [liz.haberman@gmaii.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Mall
Attention: Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton and Mike Daly,
As a homeowner in Sunriver (#3 Loon Lane) and a resident of Crosswater I am very concerned about the development
(or lack there of) of the Sunriver Village Mall.
The current Village is very shabby and most uninviting to both visitors and residents. It needs re-building, not just a
simple "face lift". It also needs a mix of residential and business facilities not strictly business concerns.
In order for this old, once respected community to be competitive as a "destination resort" the Village needs some
serious attention. Not only will this re-building help Sunriver residents and visitors, it will create more job
opportunities and provide additional tax revenues.
Thank you in advance for you consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Haberman
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Francie Patterson [fnpete97@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:10 AM
To: Board
Subject: revitalizing Sunriver commercial area
Our existing village mall is in terrible condition, we need it replaced. If that means rezoning, the please make that happen so the
work can begin.
Francie Patterson
Sunriver, OR
3/31/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:01 PM
To: 'Lee Champion'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village
Hi Lee-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Twtvwt.iu (gavt,eu) Mel,too,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Lee Champion [ma ilto: LeeC@GTSServ ices, com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:45 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village
I am writing to ask you to support the zoning change which will allow the Sunriver Village to
be revitalized.
We have been visiting Sunriver for over 25 years and have been disturbed over the years to
see the village declining-it was an important part of being in Sunriver. Being able to shop
locally and have a place the kids could ride bikes to safely was a big draw in favor of Sunriver
over Black Butte. When we heard that it had been bought and would be brought back to the
old condition, and in fact much better, we were very excited and have started looking into
purchasing in Sunriver.
The decision you make in a few days will make the difference for us and probably many others
about future vacation and retirement plans. I urge you to support this rezoning that will allow
the Sunriver to continue to be the vacation destination of choice for us and our friends as well
as being a place where we will want to retire and own property in the near future.
Lee Champion
Implementation Project Manager
3TS Slcry oi-,g anized. Slcry lnfol'Ined Slcry ahead
This email message is for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, action taken
in
eliance on the contents or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Thank you."
I/1/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Curtis Schade [wcs@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:47 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall/village at Sunriver
Importance: High
Dear Commissioners
A quick note I know how busy you are - to urge you to approve the re-zone of the Sunriver mall: it is crucially important to the
economic health of Sunriver (and also of the surrounding area) that this area be rebuilt, renovated, and re-vitalized. Sadly, the
current mall is, in my estimation, not repairable; it will need to be torn down, re-imagined and rebuilt, and the rezoning request is a
key part of that.
I appreciate all your work on this project.
Curtis Schade
20 Malheur Lane/PO Box 3549
Sunriver, OR 97707
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:01 PM
To: 'Dinah Finney'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Approval of Proposed Revitalization of Sunriver Mall
Hi Dinah and Dave-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TnVL&VA-U (gav~eU) Me[tovx,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Dinah Finney [mailto:DinahLF@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:53 AM
To: Board
Subject: Approval of Proposed Revitalization of Sunriver Mall
Dear Commissioner Luke, Melton and Daly,
This is a prayerful request for you to approve the rezoning of the Proposed Revitalization of the Sunriver
Mall as requested by Silverstar.
As residents of Sunriver we are very concerned about the condition of the Sunriver Mall and see the
community of Sunriver falling down in front of our eyes and lowering our home values. The Village needs to
be rezoned to enable a mix of commercial and residential. There is no way the current buildings, or the
commercial core, can survive as is. This has been proven with the existing Village and by many studies
throughout the country.
The Village has been a draw for many visitors for many years. It is now a place that is an embarrassment to
home owners and visitors. Several years ago I met Actor James Earl Jones who had been coming here for
12 years with his family. He no longer is coming here. Why? Could it be that Sunriver no longer has
anything to offer? How many others no longer come here to get away or to ski? All we know is that our
community keeps shrinking! Also, there are many of our friends who own second homes and are now
planning to put their homes on the market as they can not imagine living here and watching this community
bite the dust.
Our family has been dedicated supporters of the less fortunate in the Three Rivers area since we moved
here. WE support all of the non=profits in hopes of helping those in need. Without the rezoning and the
revitalization of the Mall there will be even a greater need for people in the Three Rivers area to find work.
The resources of helping the less fortunate will also be diminishing as permanent residents begin to move
)ut of this community. I can provide proof of this.
There is also the additional tax revenue that would be of significant value to Deschutes County. It doesn't
4/1/2008
take much intelligence to see the advantage of this
Page 2 of 2
We have just traveled 5000 miles throughout the Southwest and have seen construction going on
everywhere in preparation for the "baby boomers". It is impossible to understand why there is opposition to
progress and the foresight of what is to come with the many retirees and families that have sufficient income
to enjoy this great community of Sunriver. Could it be the opposition does not have foresight or they are too
selfish to see that progress is inevitable and how it will help humanity?
It is impossible to understand how one individual like Mr. Adelman (Save Sunriver) can take it upon himself
to destroy a community with his lies, threats and money and only spend two weeks a year in this
community. He admits he doesn't go to the Village and doesn't eat at the restaurants so how can he be a
judge at what is good for this community!
PLEASE! PLEASE! ! Approval of the rezoning.is essential if this community is to survive!
Dinah & Dave Finney
#2 Mt. Baker Lane
Sunriver
4/1/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:01 PM
To: 'Jerry Fullman'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall
Hi Edna and Jerry-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tn vwt.wt.u (gGl vLeU) Me[tov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Jerry Fullman [mailto:jerfullman@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:03 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton and Mike Daly
We have had a home in Sunriver for 20 years and have watched the Sunriver Mall deteriorate at a ever increasing rate.
We now go to the Old Mill district in Bend for shopping and meals because the Mall is so bad. I must be rebuilt, and
the time is now.
I have written before in support of the plan to rebuild the Mall. It may not be a perfect plan, but it is a start and one we
support.
Please give it your full consideration at the next meeting and vote in favor of the necessary changes.
Edna and Jerry Fullman
96 Pro Staff Lane
Sunriver Or
4/ 1 /2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:02 PM
To: 'Linda Top'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall revitalization
Hi Linda-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
T Wt.VLt l~ (-F n v,,eU) Me[too,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Linda Top [mailto:lindat@topmurphy.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:26 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall revitalization
Dear Dennis, Tammy and Mike,
I have been a homeowner in Sunriver since 1991. This beautiful community is one of the many special draws to Central Oregon.
In that time I have seen the Sunriver Mall go from a vibrant and fun attraction to one that has lost it edge, clearly in need of
revitalization if it is again going to draw people to enjoy what it has to offer. I am in favor of the proposed revitalization plan and
ask for your support regarding the new zone.
Regards,
Linda Top
l__ no(Ci Top
Top, Murphy & Co. LLP
503.228.2612
4/1/2008
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:02 PM
To: 'Chuck Overton bend property'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver redevelopment
Hi Chuck and Janet-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGl wt vwt. u (g Gl v"e u) M e l.to vt,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Chuck Overton bend property [mailto:chuck@bendproperty.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:44 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver redevelopment
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
c/o: Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton, Mike Daily.
Dear Commissioners,
I received an e-mail requesting I comment to you regarding the redevelopment of the
Sunriver Mall area. I am a 20 year full time resident of Sunriver, real estate broker, past
business owner in Sunriver, developer and builder.
I did not vote for the condo development proposed by Silverstar for several reasons,
primarily because it was mostly about money not Sunriver. I find this interesting I
receive an e-mail requesting support of redevelopment of the SR mall from the Bank of
Bend. There is little question the SR mall need to be updated. The big question is do we
need more condos?
Sunriver is 70-80% vacant much of the year as this is a seasonal resort. Silverstar knows
if they build 200+ condos they will sell, that does not make it good for Sunriver.
Some of the questions that I did not see addressed prior to the last vote are, water, fire
protection, ( new equipment for 3 story buildings) snow removal ( snow will have to be
trucked from the mall area if all the land is built on) , traffic, and our sewer system.
When all of these issues are addressed in a open and honest manner homeowners fees
will in the $150.00 a month range, not the $60.00 range we see now.
4/1/2008
Page 2 of 2
Will Silverstar stay around and run the mall?. I think it should be condition of approval
for any redevelopment that the investor has to maintain ownership and manage the mall
for 5-10 years at 80% vacancy. Past owners of the Sunriver mall have been "slum
landlords" that's why the mall is in the condition it's in, rents are high, maintenance is
low, and the owners are not local. As a past business owner in Sunriver I know there are
3-5 months where there is not enough business to pay rent and salaries.
I knew Silverstar would be back with a new plan, even though they said if the first vote
did not go their way they would sell, and take their money a go, well we all knew they
weren't going to do that.
The Silverstar project is about a few fat cats, with money, trying to take advantage of our
resort. Silverstar has no track record of developing this kind of project and I know from
past experience it takes much expertise from many areas to be successful. If Silverstar
gets their way, the project will be completed, they will be gone, and the Sunriver Owners
Association will be left with running a bad project. Much of the success of Sunriver is
vacation rentals. I have first hand experience in seeing nightly rentals go from 200+
nights a year to an average of about 75 nights a year over an 18 year period. Who would
want to own a vacation rental that only would rent for 35-40 nights a year? That's what
500 new condos would do to the current rental owners.
I'm extremely disappointed with the Sunriver owners association for going along with
Silverstar, agreeing to pay for round abouts, giving up common areas for condos,
underground parking. I know if Silverstar is successful in getting this project of 200+
plus condos approved I will be moving from the Sunriver resort, and many of the people I
have sold property to over the years have called me with their concerns and
expressed the same thought.
PS: 500 condos at $400,000 each = $200,000.00 what a great deal for Silverstar if they
can pull if off. This is not trickle down economics.
Sincerely
Chuck & Janet Overton
#1 Stag Lane
Sunriver, Oregon
4/1/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:04 PM
To:
'Elizabeth Baker'
Cc:
Terri Hansen Payne
Subject:
RE: Please Help Us Revitalize the Sunriver Mall
Hi Elizabeth and Brian-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Baker [mailto:ebakerCpru-nw.com)
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:27 PM
To: Board
Subject: Please Help Us Revitalize the Sunriver Mall
Importance: High
Dear Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton and Mike Daly,
My husband, Brian Baker and I are in favor of the SilverStar's proposed revitalization of
the Sunriver Village Mall. We are Sunriver homeowner's and feel this proposal will
greatly benefit all for the following reasons:
1. Vision. The Village at Sunriver will rejuvenate the Sunriver community and provide a
new economic and social center for southern Deschutes County. The existing commercial core
at Sunriver has fallen into disrepair, and revitalization efforts will result in a
community place that residents can be proud of.
2. Economic Development. The Village concept will support year-round economic
opportunity for tenants and merchants, and it will provide jobs and additional tax
revenue.
3. Community Focus. The final Village plan will reflect a cooperative effort that
upholds the vision and standards of the community, business owners and the development
team.
4. Environmentally Sensitive. The Village concept is consistent with state planning
goals by focusing on developed areas and existing infrastructure. Plans call for achieving
LEED Neighborhood Designated status.
5. High Quality. A talented team of consultants and designers will help ensure lessons
learned at resorts around the world will be integrated into the Village design, creating a
stronger community and keeping in line with Sunriver's architectural standards.
6. Pedestrian Friendly. The Village will be pedestrian oriented with public spaces and
attractions, but will incorporate bike paths and auto traffic to provide access to
residents and visitors.
7. Amenities. New amenities-including an ice skating rink, visitor center, Village pool
and fitness facilities-will enhance Sunriver's reputation as the foremost central Oregon
getaway.
8. Housing Choices. New accommodations will provide a variety of housing options, and
plans to allow short-term rentals which typically provide higher occupancy rates that
support other Village commercial tenants.
9. Covenant Controlled. To ensure quality maintenance and operation, the Village will
1
be controlled by strict covenants for each homeowner association and through a master
association for the common areas.
10. Local Interests. The management and investor team of SilverStar Destinations has
deep roots in Oregon and a strong commitment to the long-term viability of Sunriver.
Please help us revitalize the economically and physically disintegrating Sunriver Village
Mall. Thank you.
Regards,
Brian and Elizabeth Baker
Homeowners of 12 Whistler, Sunriver.
Elizabeth A. Baker, A.B.R., Q.S.C.
Broker, e-Certified
Prudential Northwest Properties
409 NE Greenwood Ave, Ste 100
Bend, OR 97701
Direct: 541-325-3045
Office: 541-322-8880
PDX Cell: 503-550-8600
Fax: 877-231-2824
website: www.elizabeth-baker.com <http://www.elizabeth-baker.com/>
Real, Real Estate Service!
A licensed Broker in the State of Oregon
2
Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now! Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:03 PM
To: 'Toni Williams'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: I'm a Citizen for Sunriver
Hi Toni-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tvv.vlklu (gRvleu) Meltoo,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Toni Williams [mailto:toni@bendluxuryhomes.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:31 PM
To: Board
Subject: I'm a Citizen for Sunriver
As a resident living just outside of Sunriver and working in Sunriver, I believe the revitalization of
the Mall is vital to its survival. I regularly shop and dine in Sunriver in addition to working in
Sunriver. As a realtor, I especially feel the effects of a degrading Mall. 1 am constantly asked
"what's happened to the mall?" This is not a fun question to answer. I chose to live in the south
county because this is where I always came to vacation over 30 years ago. I prefer the more open
spaces, slower paces of this area. The following are just some of the reasons the zone change
should be approved.
The Village has to be rebuilt
The mall needs more than a new coat of paint. It is old and needs to be torn
down completely. Any plan that does not call for a complete demolition of the
current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over. The proposed
zone change will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential,
business and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize
the Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest
destination.
The Village serves a population broader that just Sunriver residents
As additional developments are built around us, it is more important than
ever to stay ahead of the development curve. As of right now, Sunriver offers
the only business/retail mix in our direct area, but that will likely change. The
redevelopment will allow Sunriver to stay competitive among the new
developments by offering a mix of residential, business and retail in the
Village. It will become a nucleus of the community where residents and non-
residents can gather and enjoy the revitalized core-
A revitalized Village will create jobs, support businesses and create
additional tax revenue
Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes
4/1/2008
Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now!
are made to reposition the Village in the marketplace. Property value will
decline unless something is done to revitalize the mall. The proposed zone
change will allow for a development concept that will support year-round
economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike. Operating plans that
allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the
community to support the commercial tenants in Sunriver. The project will
provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county through higher
occupancies and higher retail sales. Money that comes to Sunriver will stay
in Sunriver.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Toni Williams, Broker
Cushman & Tebbs
Sotheby's International Realty
The Village at Sunriver, Bldg 4
t: 888-593-8816
c: 541-410-7292
f: 541-593-8813
Your referral is the greatest compliment I can receive.
A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
(recycle if you do print).
Page 2 of 2
4/l/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:04 PM
To:
'J & L Dials'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Zone change
Hi LeeRoy and Judy-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGl wt, vu, i (g a we M e l,to v,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: J & L Dials [mailto:jdials@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:53 PM
To: Board
Subject: Zone change
My husband and I really want to see a change in Sunriver around having a new mall with the retail, business, and residential
units. We are very unhappy with the existing situation; we want something vibrant, active, competitive with the rest of the resorts
in Oregon. Please make the decision for a new zone so that this can occur. Thankyou LeeRoy and Judy Dials
18160 Cottonwood #773
Sunriver, OR 97707
4/1/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:05 PM
To:
'gogina@cbsunriver.com'
Cc:
Terri Hansen Payne
Subject:
RE: Sunriver Mall
Hi Juanita and Everett-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: gogina@cbsunriver.com [mailto:gogina@cbsunriver.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:06 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Dear Sir;
I strongly agree with a zone change in our mall. It is unsafe as it is today. It can't
reach it's potential as it stands. This is a wonderful area and now becoming a
disappointment to the ones that use their expensive gas to get here. We can't depend on a
pool and a bike path to get them to return.
A new mall will save Sunriver and possibly keep us all out of a ressesion.
Thank you,
Juanita and Everett Turner
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:02 PM
To: 'Bailey Chuck'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall-Please OK proposed revitalization
Thank you for your email, could be the shortest one yet! I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important
decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your
comments have been added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TPmml (-F RV,,eU) Meltoo.
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Bailey Chuck [mailto:cgbailey2@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:38 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall-Please OK proposed revitalization
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:06 PM
To: 'George C. Riser'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Zoning change for Sunriver
Hi George-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: George C. Riser [mailto:griser@cmc.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Board
Subject: Zoning change for Sunriver
All three Commissioners:
I want you to know that I support the proposed zoning change for the Sunriver mall area!
This may not be the perfect solution, as a matter of fact, there not be a perfect
solution, but I'm sure that it is the best first step in making this badly needed
redevelopment possible.
Please vote in favor of these changes
George C. Riser, 34 Oregon Loop, Sunriver.
1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:06 PM
To:
'Sue Braithwaite'
Cc:
Terri Hansen Payne
Subject:
RE: Sunriver Mall Revitalization
Hi Susan-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Braithwaite [mailto:sueb9@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:06 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Revitalization
I strongly support the proposed Sunriver Mall revitalization. Please vote to approve this
much-needed plan. Even though we don't live within the Sunriver property, we have many
friends who do and we take advantage of the shops and restaurants. It has been very
disheartening to watch the property erode over the past decade and this project would make
a huge difference.
Sincerely,
Susan Braithwaite
17028 Cooper Drive
Sunriver, OR 97707
Sue Braithwaite
sueb9@mac.com
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:06 PM
To: 'Jacquie Siewert-Schade'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: SR redevelopment
Hi Jacquie-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Trawt.KAL~ (Fi2V1,eU) Me[tow
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Jacquie Siewert-Schade [mailto:jacquie@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:24 PM
To: Board
Subject: SR redevelopment
Dear Board Members,
As a full-time resident of Sunriver for the last eight years and a SR homeowner for ten, I would like to put in my yes vote for the
rezoning that is necessary for the new owners of the SR Village to move forward. One of the draws to buy our home in SR was
that, at that time, the village was a vibrant place. We have seen its terrible decline and do not like it at all.
Our village has been and could be again, with the rezoning, a great place not only for those of us who live in SR proper, but also
those who live in the south county area. I do believe that a revitalized village would serve as a place of employment and
enjoyment for the citizens of south county.
And ofcourse a new beautiful village would help to keep our property values high.
Having used some of the village buildings I do also believe that renovation of those structures will not do. They were cheaply
made and are certainly showing their age.
I would also like to speak of the management of the Silverstar group who owns the village property. They have been most
accomodating to the desires of SR residents. In addition to which they are very good neighbors, giving space to the SRFriends of
the Library for their annual booksale and providing space for our Care and Share food distribution. They are serious, well
mannered (if spite of much unpleasantness), and eager to upgrade our sad little village in a way that will be beautiful for us and
profitable for them.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Jacquie Siewert-Schade
Full-time resident at 20 Malheur
Sunriver, Oregon
4/1/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:07 PM
To: 'LaRayne924@aol.com'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver zone change
Hi Cal and LaRayne-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TnvKvtA.U, (-FnvLeU) MeLtow
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: LaRayne924@aol.com [mailto:LaRayne924@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:00 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver zone change
We are permanent residents of Sunriver, OR. We support a zone change for the revitalization of the village mall in Sunriver. A
change in the setbacks will help them to accomplish their goal and will help to make the community a better place to live and
play. Cal and LaRayne Hutchins, #6 Summit Ln. Sunriver, OR 97707
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
4/1/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: David Grissen [davidgrissen@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:10 PM
To: Board
Subject: Request concerning upcoming zoning of Sunriver
Dear County Commissioners,
29-March-2008
My wife, Sheri, and I are permanent residents of Sunriver. We have lived here for the past 4 years and plan to continue
living in Sunriver. We love it here!
We always enjoy visiting our central mall, especially when our children and grandchildren visit us, or when we want to
eat out. Every time we are down there, we are always saddened with the mall's present condition of a lack of visitors,
the number of empty store fronts, and lack of business vibrancy.
Both of us want to request that you pass the zoning needed for the present owners so they can proceed with their plans
to revitalize and change the mall into something that we, Sunriver residents, may be proud of. We know that they are
doing do-diligence in relationship to factors of traffic, design, green areas, listening to homeowners concerns, etc, and
therefore we trust them to move forward appropriately. We believe that in our day and age, and especially in Central
Oregon, development must move forward here or Sunriver will diminish it's appeal and value. Our belief is that our
SROA is also doing their part to facilitate these changes in an appropriate manner.
So after you have done your do-diligence with the present zoning laws in relationship to their request for changes, we
would request that you give them as much lee-way and change as is possible so things can change for the positive in
our little corner of the county.
Thank you,
David J. Grissen
Sheri J. Grissen
26 Bunker Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
3/31/2008
Page 1 of l
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Steve Shaiman [steve@shaiman.net)
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:39 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Revitilization
have been an owner in Sunriver for over 10 years. During that time I have watched the retail core of the Country Village Mall
deteriorate from a vital collection of shops, restaurants and amusements to place where I go to buy my groceries, if I have no
other reason to make the drive into Bend. There is nothing that would improve Sunriver more than revitalizing the mall. It is the
only major improvement in the area that is likely to significantly increase tax revenue from the various sources available in the
Sunriver area. It has now been proven at least twice, with the last two owners that the mall, as it currently exists, cannot be a
financial success in it's current configuration and that the only possibility for future success is allow the mall to both grow and
change how the space within its boundaries is allocated.
The addition of significant new developments in the proximity of Sunriver make the revitalization of the Village Mall sooner rather
than later important. Getting these new developments off to a good start by providing a first class environment for people to
gather, shop, and have some fun will pay a part in the long-term financial success to all those involved. In particular it should
provide significant new employment opportunities in the area for a variety of levels of workers in both the long- and short-term. All
of these factors add up to a win-win-win-win for the owners of housing and businesses in the areas, the residents and visitors who
stay in the area and take advantage of what the Village Mall has to offer as well as the county which we all hope will received
significantly higher revenues from the variety of taxes that all of us pay and which all will be positively impacted by having a bigger
and better Village Mall.
Thank you for your time,
Steve Shaiman
Owner
14 Loon Lane
Sunriver
3/3 l /2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Beve/Jack Kiekel [bjkiekel@yahoo.comj
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:47 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Support
To: Dennis Luke
Tammy Melton
Mike Daly
I would like to thank you for the attention and study you have invested thus far to the questions surrounding the plans
for bringing new life to the Sunriver Mall.
I have been a Sunriver owner for several years and observed the gradual deterioration of the mall. I was thrilled when
the purchase of the mall leading to the possiblility of its development was made public. 1 have attended several of the
public meetings and believe I was adequately informed before the owners' vote on the project and was extremely
disappointed that the proposal was defeated.
Many of us see Sunriver as part of the larger Three Rivers community and interact with those neighbors in a variety of
ways. I belive that a revitalized mall would contribute energy to a large area.
I ask for your positive response to the rezoning of the mall
With my thanks,
Beverlene Kiekel
Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost.
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Pavne
From: tkelly [shakelly 1 @mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:51 PM
To: Board
Subject: upcoming meetings
Commissioners:
We support that the current zone changed be changed and approved by the CountY
Commissioners.
The Sunriver Mall, in its present condition, is old and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
We live in a very beautiful area and have so many wonderful assets that bring tourists and
money into the area, which helps all of us and we need to bring some new life into the
mall. SilverStar can do this with your approval
Please listen to what the homeowners who live here most of the year and are commited to
this area, and not the ones that are absentee landlords and don't have a clue about what
is really needed to make us a viable and vital destinations so we can compete fairly,
This will bring jobs, money to company and revitalize the area.
Sincerely,
Tom and Sharon Kelly
10 Muir Lane
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Doug Seator [dseator@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:12 PM
To: Board
Subject: SilverStar Destinations requested amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
Commissioner Mike Daly
Commissioner Dennis Luke
Commissioner Tammy Melton
We are writing to urge you to approve SilverStar Destinations requested amendments to the County
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to create a set of regulations for a new Town Center district in
Sunriver.
Results from surveys of Sunriver property owners conducted by the SROA indicate that a revitalized village
is on the top of the list of issues that must be addressed. The Village at Sunriver needs more than a coat of
paint. It needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt with the vision that SilverStar has developed. The old
model of commercial only without mixed use no longer works financially.
The proposed zone change will enable a mixed use plan that will revitalize the village and keep Sunriver on
the map as the premier Northwest resort destination. A revitalized village will provide a new economic and
social center for Southern Deschutes County. We envision as redevelopment unfolds, the community of
Sunriver will embrace the change and what is an embarrassment today will become a source of pride and
satisfaction in the future.
Failure to revitalize the village also has financial consequences for the County (reduced room tax revenue)
and as property values decline there is a corresponding reduction in property taxes coming from Sunriver.
We look forward to your approval of the proposed amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code.
Thank you
Doug and Sue Seator
30 Oregon Loop
Sunriver, OR 97707
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Beve/Jack Kiekel [bjkiekel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:17 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Sunrivere Mall Revitalization
To: Ms. Terri Payne, Senior Planner
Community Development Dept.
Deschutes County
Dear Ms. Payne,
Thank you for the time and attention you have given thus far to the plans and meetings involving the Sunriver Mall
developement project.
I have been a Sunriver owner for several years and observed the gradual deterioration of the mall. I was thrilled when
the purchase of the mall opened the possibility of a project to develop the area, and extremely disappointed when
Sunriver owners defeated the proposal in the recent vote.
Many of us see Sunriver as a part of the larger Three Rivers community and we interact with our neighbors in a variety
of ways. I believe that a revitalilzed mall would bring positive energy to a wide area here in South County.
Those of us who are part of the Citizens For Sunriver supporting the project for revitalizing the mall would like to ask
you for your support in any way you can.
With my thanks,
Beverlene Kiekel
8 Play Off Lane
Sunriver
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
3/31/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: David Lewis [david.lewis@bankofbend.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:08 AM
To: Board
Subject: FW: Sunriver Mall Zoning Changes
From: Judy [mailto:Realtor)udyKell@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:09 PM
To: 'board@co.deschutes.or.us.'
Subject: Sunriver Mall Zoning Changes
MEMORANDUM
TO: DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
DENNIS LUKE, TAMMY MELTON, MIKE DALY
As a member of Citizens For Sunriver for the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall, I urge
you to consider the required zone changes so redevelopment can occur.
As a real estate broker in Sunriver, I hear what visitors are saying about the present
mall. Many aren't even aware of the proposal on the table but are concerned with the
current deficient state.
Please help us move forward with positive energy and progress.
Blessings - Judy Keller
Judy Keller, Principal Broker
Cascadian Real Estate Team
Anytime - 541-610-2960
RealtorludyKell@aol.com
Coldwell Banker First Resort Realty
541-593-1234
Sunriver Mall Bldg 9
P.O. Box 4306, Sunriver, OR 97707
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Monroe Mike [mikefmonroe@mac.com]
Sent:
Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:58 PM
To:
Board
Subject:
Revitalization of the Sun River mall.
Dear Board members,
I fully and wholeheartedly support the revitalization of the Sun River mall. I personally
will sell my home in SR and remove myself from the development if this venture does not go
forward in some fashion and reasonable time period. The current mall is a blight in Sun
River and anyone who thinks other wise is in serious denial. One need only look to other
resorts and their amenities to know that this project is desperately needed in SR and can
be a boon to SR in every way. If the mall continues to deteriorate if will have very
negative
effects on my property values and the quality of the SR experience.
I love my home in SR but not enough to stay if this type of reasonable development is
denied either by government restriction or
SR Owners association blockage. Vote YES TO THE REVITALIZATION.
PLEASE......
Mike Monroe
21 winners Circle
Sun River
March 30, 2008
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
From: William and Jeanette Bancroft, Sunriver, Oregon
Subj: Sunriver Mall
We would like to go on record for being in total support for the revitalization of the
Sunriver Mall. We purchased a Vacation/Rental home in Sunriver in 1997, then bought
another Sunriver house when we retired here in 2003.
We feel strongly that the Village is in desperate need of attention. It needs to be rebuilt
totally into something that we can all be proud of. The proposed zone changes will
enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential, business and retail. A
revitalization of the Village will allow Sunriver to remain the premier Northwest
destination.
A new Village will serve a population broader than just Sun-river residents. It gives
residents and non-residents a place to gather and enjoy a truly rewarding experience. It
will also create jobs, support businesses and create additional tax revenue.
In survey after survey done by the Sunriver Owners Association of the permanent and
non-resident property owners, the number one concern was the Mall and the urgent need
for its revitalization.
Please accept our support for the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall.
William and Jeanette Bancroft
7-Lava Top Lane
9-Dogleg Lane
Sunriver, OR
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Earl Westrick [earl@cmc.net)
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:41 AM
To: Board
Subject: Approval Needed
Deschutes County Commission Members
This is to request that you approve the rezoning of the Village in Sunriver
I've resided in Sunriver for ten years. While, for me, the quality of life has been higher than a retiree would hope for, there is one
area of disappointment, i.e. the village.
The rapid deterioration (empty commercial areas, poorly maintained buildings, low environmental standards) indicates there are
no practical remedies other than a new vision for the Village. Rezoning is the fundamental necessity for a new vision to come to
fruition.
I appreciate your efforts in considering this request.
Earl Westrick
PO Box 3276
Sunriver, OR 97707
541 593 3090
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Thomas Hoppin [hoppintommy@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:22 AM
To: Board
Subject: revitalization Sunriver village
Dear Commissioners,
I support the proposed revitalization of the Sunriver Village.
an owner for 10 years in Sunriver at 13 wallow LP
sincerely
Tom Hoppin
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: MalMurphy [mrmurphy@chamberscable.comj
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:40 AM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: Silverstar Destinations, LLC Re Numbers PA-07-6 & TA-07-6
My wife, Jane Boubel and I are full time residents of Sunriver. We have owned property here since 1990, and have occupied our
home here since May of 2003.
We strongly support the application of Silverstar Destinations for a new set of regulations allowing it to create and develop the
proposed Town Center district. The current Sunriver Village is in a state of advancing deterioration, and there is an immediate
need for new, forward looking, vibrant development, or the entire community will be very adversely affected. The Silverstar Town
Center application involves just such a proposal, and we strongly urge the CDD and County Commission to give its approval as
quickly as possible.
Mal Murphy
Jane Boubel
18 Cultus Lane
Sunriver
541 593-2641
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:10 PM
To: 'gjeub@earthlink.net'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall Revitalization
Hi Gerard and Joann-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tq vKK,,, J, (-F o V\,eW Mel.tov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Gerard Jeub [mailto:gjeub@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:44 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Revitalization
Sirs:
As owners of two Sunriver properties, we strongly urge the support of the proposed Sunriver Mall revitalization. The current Mall
is rapidly moving beyond the "bandaid" approach and desperately needs rebuilding if Sunriver is to remain the vibrant destination
resort that it is. Without the revitalization project, Sunriver may very well become a "second class" resort, unable to compete with
all the new resorts being built.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gerard & Joann Jeub
Gerard Jeub
gjeub@earthlink.net
Earthl-ink Revolves Around You.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:10 PM
To: 'Udlock@wmconnect.com'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Citizens for Sunriver
Hi Vicki-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tn K/LvvtU (_F i2 nCU) Mcl,tOV,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Udlock@wmconnect.com [mailto:Udlock@wmconnect.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Board
Subject: Citizens for Sunriver
I do not live in Sunriver but I work there for the Sunriver Music Festival, I shop there because it's closer than Bend, and I eat at the
local restaurants not only because it is convenient but I know those folks need the business. The Mall rents are so high that most
businesses cannot afford to stay. It is very empty looking and has so much potential.
The building where the Sunriver Music Festival used to located burned down due to faulty wiring and water leaks. Bella Cucina
had to close down due to water leakage and mold that was consequently discovered. They moved to another location from which
another restaurant had been who had an electrical fire. The buildings have-not been well maintained by the management in the
past and they are old. These buildings were cheap premanufactured buildings that were put together without fire barrier between
them. A perfect environment for a fire.
Please consider the request for rezoning. We need to refurbish and revitalize this community asset
Vicki Udlock
The Village has to be rebuilt
The mall needs more than a new coat of paint. It is old and needs to be torn down completely. Any plan that does not call for a
complete demolition of the current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over. The proposed zone change will enable a
mixed use plan that will incorporate residential, business and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize the
Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest destination.
The Village serves a population broader that just Sunriver residents
As additional developments are built around us, it is more important than ever to stay ahead of the development curve. As of right
now, Sunriver offers the only business/retail mix in our direct area, but that will likely change. The redevelopment will allow
Sunriver to stay competitive among the new developments by offering a mix of residential, business and retail in the Village. It will
become a nucleus of the community where residents and non-residents can gather and enjoy the revitalized core.
A revitalized Village will create jobs, support businesses and create additional tax revenue
Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes are made to reposition the Village in the
marketplace. Property value will decline unless something is done to revitalize the mall. The proposed zone change will allow for a
development concept that will support year-round economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike. Operating plans that
allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the community to support the commercial tenants in Sunriver.
The project will provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county through higher occupancies and higher retail sales. Money
3/31/2008
Page 2 of 2
that comes to Sunriver will stay in Sunriver.
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:10 PM
To: 'al4joyce3@chamberscable.com'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village
Hi Joyce and Alan-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: al4joyce3@chamberscable.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:37
To: Board
Cc: al4joyce3@chamberscable.com
Subject: Sunriver Village
[mailto:al4joyce3@chamberscable.com]
AM
Dear Friends--my wife Joyce and I have lived in Sunriver since August 99 as full time
residents and are very involved in our community and in Deschutes County. Additionally we
have owned property in Sunriver for an additional 10 years since 1989.
Since moving here full time we have become very concerned about the terrible condition of
our mall and we are asking for your support in changing the zoning so that redevelopment
can take place.
You have seen that there are some who oppose this development and in seems that they
oppose any development. Unfortunately those who oppose were much better organized than
those of us who fully support the development.
Unfortunately we who support the redevelopment probably took the issue for granted and
were not as well organized as the opposition. We are very concerned that their voice has
struck out for no change and without any solutions of their own.
We hope that you will support the rezoning as our community and we believe the south
county needs this redevelopment. One comment we recently heard was that the same negative
comments which the opposition have spoken are similar to ones spoken when the Old Mill was
proposed. One does not have to look very far to see what a positive impact the Old Mill
development has had on our County.
The current mall is so run down that simple fixes will not solve the problem. It must be
torn down with total redevelopment for this to be viable. Any plan which does not call
for the complete demolition of the current mall we believe will not be acceptable. We
believe that the very positive proposal will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate
residential, business and retail creating a village we all can be proud of and which will
support the interests of many in the south county way beyond the borders of Sunriver.
Plus it will support the needs of many who travel to visit the Sunriver area and want an
enjoyable experience which the current mall can not provide.
On a regular basis we see in the papers information about new resort developments in
Deschutes County and nearby Klamath County--either currently being developed or being
proposed. We who live in SR want our community to be competitive for tourist visits and
dollars, and want the positive reputation our our community to continue to get better. We
1
have so many positives going for our community including river access. What we are
lacking we believe is a Village which draws people to it for shopping, dining, or living.
We are also looking to this development to provide jobs, support businesses and to create
additional tax revenues for the County. We have talked to a few business owners in the
current mall who have told us they want to be part of the future and believe that this
proposed redevelopment will definitely help their business and their future. They express
concern about the seasonal nature of their business and believe as we do that this
proposed development will bring in more people in the off seasons to help the business
environment.
On a personal basis, we are also concerned about our property value which we believe will
decline without this development.
One of the negative themes you have heard is how the increased traffic may overrun our
pathways, etc. I have been chair of the Sunriver Safety Committee for nearly three years
and heavily involved in various pathway studies, and I just do not believe that there will
be a negative effect of this increased traffic. I do believe that one traffic circle is
needed to improve vehicle traffic flow and improve public safety and hopefully this will
be a part of the new plan. While not an absolute expert on public safety, my work on the
Safety Committee plus my work as one of the few incident commanders for Deschutes County
Sheriffs Search and Rescue has convinced me that those who express concern are just off
base.
Again we ask for your support in approving the zone change. We believe this new proposal
will allow for year-around economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike and that
the benefit of the new development will be positively felt throughout the south county and
will serve the interests of those of us who live in SR and those who live close by.
We ask for your positive support in creating this new Village by approving the zone
change.
Best Regards
Alan and Joyce Hornish
#16 Mulligan
Sunriver
We are writing this from Baltimore, MD where we are visiting family, therefore we have
sent a copy to our email address which is:
al4joyce3@chamberscable.com
2
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:09 PM
To: 'Dinah Finney'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Proposed Revitalization
Hi Dinah-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Twt.vwt, (-F no'eu) Mel-tow
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Dinah Finney [mailto:DinahLF@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:57 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Proposed Revitalization
Commissioners Melton, Daly and Luke,
It is Sunday morning immediately following our church service at Sunriver Christian Fellowship. As I looked
around the congregation I could find approximately 98% of our parishioners who are very dedicated, giving
and wonderful people. These people are responsible for the great community that we have here in
Sunriver. The Outreach Programs sponsored by our congregation are outstanding in a community this size.
I only mention this as I heard a story about a mother and her three children in the Three Rivers
area supported by a local family as well as our church. There were prayers for people outside of SR who
are struggling and another story of a donated snowblower to a man so he could make extra money to
support his family this past winter.
The above stories are the "heart and sole" of this community and the importance of rezoning and the
revitalization of the Mall as proposed by Silverstar. There are so many facets of this important proposal that
will help the people outside of Sunriver as well as the residents. We all need to look at how important it is to
provide jobs and revenue for Deschutes County.
I am not promoting spiritually and I am not concerned about others spiritually. All I am asking is that the
Commissioners (as some of the Planning Commissioners already recognized) is that the revitalization is
important to help sustain SR and the surrounding area. That is why I ask you to approve the rezoning to
include residential and commercial so redevelopment can occur. I doubt the opposition ever considers
ethers beyond their own selfish acts.
Dinah Finney
~2 Mt. Baker Lane
5unriver, Or 97707
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:08 PM
To: 'Vivienne Jarvis'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: proposed revitalization
Hi Vivienne-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: Vivienne Jarvis (mailto:VivJarvis@webtv.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:10 PM
To: Board
Subject: proposed revitalization
We must demolish and upgrade our decrepit mall-The Village has to
be rebuilt.TheVillage serves apopulation broader than just Sunriver residents.A
revitalized Villagewill create jobs,support businesses and create additional tax revenue.
thank you. Vivienne Jarvis
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:05 PM
To: 'Emily Clay'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: FOR Sunriver Mall Rebuilt...
Hi Emily-
As I mentioned in my email to Emery, thank you for submitting comments regarding the Sunriver Village issue. Please know that
your email has been added to the public record.
In Partnership,
T wt. vvtu (g n vue iu) M e lto vu
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Emily Clay [mailto:emilywclay@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:20 PM
To: Board
Cc: Emery Clay
Subject: FOR Sunriver Mall Rebuilt...
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband, Emery Clay and I own 7 Mt. Hood cabin in Sunriver and see a desperate need to rebuild Sunriver Mall. We are
supporting the proposed zone change so that it can become a mixed use and vital area.
1) Sunriver Mall needs to change soon or the competition around it will be the premier real estate and Sunriver's values will decline
severely.
2) The proposed zone change will allow for a development concept that will support year-round economic opportunity for tenants and
merchants alike. The project will provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county through higher occupancies and higher retail
sales.
This is needed desperately to make Sunriver an attractive place to vacation and live year round.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Emily and Emery Clay (7 Mt. Hood)
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:03 PM
To: 'L WILSON'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Village
Hi Lynn-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGlwtmi (gavlel ) Me[tovu
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: L WILSON [mailto:lynnrwils@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:26 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village
Dear County Commissioners:
As a 10 year resident of Crosswater I am writing to support the Sunriver Mall redevelopment. In its present
condition it will not attract any new businesses to support our area and in fact many businesses have left the
mall to move back to Bend. In order to revitalize Sunriver we will need to demolish the mall and start over with
a multi-use zone change supporting residential, business and retail establishments.
I have seen what a multi-use resort plan will do to a community. Northstar at Tahoe ski resort in Truckee, CA
has undertaken such a plan. It has been successful in attracting people and businesses to the area and keeping
it alive during the off season. Please consider such a change for Sunriver.
Sincerely,
Lynn Wilson
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:03 PM
To: 'emery@solsburyhillproductions.com'
cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: The Village has to be rebuilt!
Hi Emery-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tvv,wt.U (gG2ve~) MeLtOvA,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: emery@solsburyhillproductions.com [mailto:emery@solsburyhillproductions.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:28 PM
To: Board
Subject: The Village has to be rebuilt!
The proposed zone change will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential, business and retail, creating a
Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize the 5unriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest
destination.The redevelopment will allow 5unriver to stay competitive among the new developments by offering a mix of
residential, business and retail in the Village. It will become a nucleus of the community where residents and non-residents
can gather and enjoy the revitalized core. 5unriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes are
made to reposition the Village in the marketplace. Property value will decline unless something is done to revitalize the
mall. The proposed zone change will allow for a development concept that will support year-round economic opportunity for
tenants and merchants alike. Operating plans that allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the
community to support the commercial tenants in 5unriver. The project will provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the
county through higher occupancies and higher retail sales. Money that comes to 5unriver will stay in 5unriver.
Thank you for your attention to this vital matter!
Emery Clay
503.314.1919 cell
owner- 7 Mt Hood
3/3 1/2008
Pagel of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 2008 2:03 PM
To:
'Bill Starks'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Town Center Zone Approval
Hi Bill and Jan-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGlwtnA- (gPv,,eU) McLtov~.
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Bill Starks [mailto:bstarks@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Town Center Zone Approval
The Community of Sunriver has aged considerably over its 40 year history. It no longer enjoys being essentially the
only premier resort area in which to live and visit in Central Oregon as the area has and will continue to grow bringing
competition for both visitors and permanent residents. Revitalization of our retail mall is essential to our future health.
The Country Mall is dying from many factors including declining permanent population (now fallen to 12%), highly
seasonal transient activity making it nearly impossible for businesses to survive year round, and a lack of willing
investment to modernize and maintain the bricks and mortar. It just isn't going to get better with the existing
constraints on what can be done. If the Country Store leaves due to a lack of adequate space and parking, something
that is highly likely to happen, this mall will never rise again. For those of us who live here fulltime, a viable local
retail facility is important, especially during the winter season.
A new paradigm is needed which will allow reinvestment in today's economy and the proposed Town Center District is
needed to make this happen. The residential component is critical in two ways. First, an increase in both permanent
and transient population is needed to support business survivability. Second, the investment required just to revitalize
the commercial component in a way which draws adequate traffic from the community and surrounding area is too high
to stand on its own. The proposed residential component addresses both of these issues.
Sunriver and its retail facilities were originally planned on 5500 acres, 2200 acres more than we have today. This
would have increased the number of residence units by far more than what is being proposed in the Town Center Zone
even if the entire 26.5 acre potential site were used. At the original concept of a maximum of 1.5 units/acre to conserve
open space there could have been upwards of 8000 units built and even with the remaining acreage today, about 4900
with less than 4200 in current existence. This is not "too much" as opponents have stated. Its just in a different form
than we are accustomed to.
My wife and I have been involved in Sunriver for 25 years having settled permanently here in 2001. We have seen
the mall when it was fully occupied and successful. It has declined considerably in the last decade and something must
3/31/2008
v
Page 2 of 2
be done now to have it remain as part of our uniqueness in Central Oregon. We urge the Commission to support the
proposed Town Center Zone with minimal delay.
Bill & Jan Starks
10 Loon Lane
Sunriver
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:03 PM
To: 'Si Reedy'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall
Hi Shirley and Si-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added
to the public record.
In Partnership,
TP vin, wt, lJ, (g i2 VLe U) M e l,to vL
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Si Reedy [mailto:sreedy@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:56 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
We urgently request that the Brd. change the current zoning to allow the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall.
Shirley & Si Reedy
#21 Siskin Ln., Sunriver
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:01 PM
To: 'Jan1foley@aol.com'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Zone Change
Hi Jan-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TnvvtvLtIJi (gGivie~) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Janlfoley@aol.com [mailto:Janlfoley@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:58 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Zone Change
To the County Commissioners:
Sunriver Village desperately needs a zone change. The current village is not economically viable and needs an extreme
update. The current village is old past cosmetic changes and needs to be torn down. It no longer can compete for tenants or
shoppers. If new condos and business buildings are built, businesses will be able to attract enough customers so they can
survive in today's business climate. The new mall owners have a plan to build residences that will finance the business building
construction. They have planned for parking, public gathering spaces, a continuation of the many public events that currently
take place in the open areas of the current mall, and have mitigated the higher building elevations with attractive design and
landscaping that will blend with the rest of Sunriver. The Sunriver owners really need a revitalized mall/central village to replace
a very outdated one. The new village will serve Sunriver residents and people from the surrounding area. This new village will
generate more property tax revenue for the county, allow improved amenities for owners and visitors, and create additional
jobs. I hope you will approve the zone change.
Jan Foley
jan1 foley@comcast.net
14 Rager Mountain
and 2535 SE Vineyard Way
Milwaukie, OR 07222
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Lhornbuckl@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:21 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
My husband and I are full-time permanent residents of Sunriver and have been for many years. We have seen the mall go from
fun and upbeat, to depressing and decrepit. The mall is the heart of Sunriver and it must be revitalized and remodeled!
Sunriver will cease to exist if the mall is left to further deteriorate! We cannot leave this decision to a few who probably don't
remember when the mall was alive and thriving and they are-probably not full-time residents! Taking visitors by shuttle into
Bend is not the answer.
We need to bring back the heart of our little community, and keep it alive! Please help us to rebuild our mall with Silverstar!
Sincerely,
Lynn and Jerry Hornbuckle
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Hbarragar@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:21 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Cc: sos@sunrive rtelecom.com-, tekoa53@hotmail.com; dmbhutch@msn.com; c@candcprop.com
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Dear Terri--I have just returned from several days in Sunriver. I visited the mall several times
and talked to a number of property owners who are opposed to SilverStar's plans but are
interested in trying to work out a compromise that would result in an improved mall but
would better match the character of Sunriver. Today I reread the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting at which a recommendation to the County Commissioners was
approved.
I realize that the Planning Commission may have had a duty to move forward with SilverStar's
application but in a perfect world the Planning Commission's decision would have been
delayed until after the results of the owners vote were known.
The minutes indicate that great weight was given to the position of the SROA Board in its
"negotiations" with SilverStar. However, the voting was a clear repudiation of the Board's
stance. The Board spent $15,000 on a public relations consultant, made several mailing and
used the resources of its website and the Sunriver Scene and still was able to get only a 55%
favorable vote.
As a result SilverStar is now in the process of proposing language for the Zoning Code text
that would give Silver benefit from the adjacent SROA without owning it. No doubt you are
aware of the changes that are under consideration.
The new language is significant for several reasons. It is a departure from concepts approved
by the Planning Commission. The community at large has not yet had an opportunity to
review and consider this language. A consent by the SROA to this use could create an
unlawful encumbrance under the Consolidated Plan of Sunriver. The concept embodied in
this new language further reinforces the view that Deschutes County has embarked on a zone
change involving specific property in the guise of a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
It is clear that this matter is not ripe for consideration by the County Commissioners. Events
have overtaken the recommendation that was made by the Planning Commission in January.
With the results of the vote now known and revised zoning language forthcoming, it is time for
the Planning Commission to take a new look.
request that the Board of County Commissioners remove this matter from their agenda and
send it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. It would be appreciated if
you would communicate my request to the County Commissioners. If you would prefer that I
communicate directly with them, please let me know.
Sincerely, Harvey C. Barragar
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: JOHN AND MARY GILBERT [ochoco3@q.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:34 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Commissioners: Luke, Melton & Daly,
We wish to express our desire in favor of the redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall by Silverstar with these conditions; that building
heights be limited to 3 stories and the number of condominiums and hotel rooms be limited to 300.
In addition, we would ask that Silverstar share equally with SROA the cost of a "new circle" to accommodate the additional traffic.
Respectfully,
Jack & Mary Gilbert
#3 Ochoco Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
593-2308
3/31/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
fredpease@chamberscable.com
Sent:
Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:19 PM
To:
Board
Subject:
Redevelopment of Sunriver Mall
Importance: High
Dear Board Members;
We strongly urge you to favorably consider the redevelopment of the Sunriver village Mall.
We have been owners of three different Sunriver properties over the past twelve years and
have just recently become full time residents. During that time the deteriorating
occupancy of the mall business properties has been an increasing concern. Although we did
not favor specifically the Silverstar proposal as most recently presented we are confident
that a redevelopment that fits within guidelines envisioned in the Sunriver charter is
both feasible and essential. We want Sunriver to maintain it's position as a favored
vacation destination as well as a delightful place to live. The current condition of the
village mall is a disappointment to both residents and their guests.
Thank you for your attention to this matter that is so important to the future of Sunriver
and to us.
Yours truly,
Frederic and Jane Pease
13 Siskin Lane
PMB336 18160 Cottonwood Road
Sunriver, OR 97707
541-593-1899
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: George Blankenship [benblank@cmc.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:46 PM
To: Board
Subject: Village at Sunriver
To Commissioners Daly, Melton and Luke
My name is George Blankenship and I live just south of Sunriver in the Crosswater community. I have been a resident there for
almost seven years. I shop frequently at the Sunriver Country Store and use other stores and restaurants (what's left) in the mall.
It has been very disappointing to see the decline of the mall over the past seven years. If left on the current course the mall will be
a disaster (economic and otherwise) for area residents, renters, and resort guests.
It was with much excitement that I learned of Silver Star's plans to completely remodel and revitalize the mall. Unfortunately,
because I am not a Sunriver resident I could not vote on the recent SROA property sale to Silver Star. As a southern Deschutes
County resident I do strongly encourage you to approve Silver Star's current application for re-zoning. I'm confident that Silver Star
will do a first class remodel that will enhance value for all.
Thank you,
George Blankenship
benblank@cmc net
56634 Little River Ct.
Bend 97707
3/31/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Diana Swenson [dbos@chamberscable.coml
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:56 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Mall
Dear County Commissioners
I have lived in Sunriver as a full-time year round resident for over 16 years. At that time (1992) the
Village Mall was a vibrant place and visitors looked forward to shopping and dining experiences. Sadly it
has deteriorated at a rapid speed and is now an embarrassment to many homeowners. I implore you to
listen to the views of those of us eager to revitalize the property.
Thank you for your attention.
Diana Swenson
#5 Pine Cone Lane
Sunriver OR 97707
3/31/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Jim & Louise Wilson Uwlw9g@cmc.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:10 PM
To: Board
Subject: Rebuilding the Sunriver Mall.
As full time residents of Sunriver, we support all efforts by SilverStar to rebuild the Sunriver Mall. It is our desire to see a vibrant
modern facility with residential living units as part of the configuration. The mall is a tired, outdated group of buildings. In order to
be a competitive destination resort we need to have a major remodel.
Jim and L:ouise Wilson
9 Gannet Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Doug Vakoc [doug@vakoc.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:10 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Changes
Jane and I strongly support the Deschutes County Planning Dept's recommendations for the proposed zone changes
to the Sunriver Village.
The Village has to be rebuilt
The mall needs more than a new coat of paint. It is old and needs to be torn down completely. Any plan that does not
call for a complete demolition of the current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over. The proposed zone
change will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential, business and retail, creating a Village we can all
be proud of. It will revitalize the Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest destination.
The Village serves a population broader that just Sunriver residents
As additional developments are built around us, it is more important than ever to stay ahead of the development curve.
As of right now, Sunriver offers the only business/retail mix in our direct area, but that will likely change. The
redevelopment will allow Sunriver to stay competitive among the new developments by offering a mix of residential,
business and retail in the Village. It will become a nucleus of the community where residents and non-residents can
gather and enjoy the revitalized core.
A revitalized Village will create jobs, support businesses and create additional tax revenue
Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes are made to reposition the Village in the
marketplace. Property value will decline unless something is done to revitalize the mall. The proposed zone change
will allow for a development concept that will support year-round economic opportunity for tenants and merchants
alike. Operating plans that allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the community to
support the commercial tenants in Sunriver. The project will provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county
through higher occupancies and higher retail sales. Money that comes to Sunriver will stay in Sunriver.
Doug & Jane Vakoc
18160 Cottonwood Road PMB 259
Sunriver, OR 97707
PH 541 598-2048 Cell 541 390-3168
Email Doug(d)Vakoc.corn Jane@Vakoc.com
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Gerry & Elizabeth Stearns [phonhom@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5A9 PM
To: Board
Subject: New Zoning Requirements for Sunriver Village
Dear Commissioners,
I write this email to you in response to the rezoning of Sunriver Village. Clearly there is a need for the mall to be revitalized and
this can only be done with the injection of new capital, and this is being offered by SilverStar Destination, LLC. But first we need
the zoning to be changed in order to give SilverStar encouragement to move forward in their plan for the design of the village.
Without the zoning change SilverStar will be unable to move further in the planning process. This then would be tantamount to
death of the village renovation plan.
As one of the many homeowners in Sunriver favoring of the SilverStar plan, our community needs this injection of new money to
build a new forward looking village mall. So with your approval vote for a zoning change this can begin to happen.
Thank you for your support
Gerald R. Stearns
#38 Maury Mountain Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
593-6565
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Iselin, Joan Diselin@sunriverrealty.coml
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:55 PM
To: Board
Subject: Revitalization of Sunriver Village
County Commissioners:
My husband, Keith Iselin, and I had our first Sunriver home built in 1978 as a vacation home. We have lived in Sunriver full time
since 1995 and have seen the Sunriver Village deteriorate and become vacant. We whole-heartly support the rezoning and
complete renovation of the mall. In our opinion it will add revenue to the County and revitalize what has become an eyesore in
Sunriver. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Keith 541419-6418 Joan 541410-1366.
Joan and Keith Iselin
12 Fremont Drive
Sunriver OR 97707
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: MICHAEL BEESON [sunrivermike@msn.coml
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:57 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver mall rezoning request
We live about two miles south of Sunriver on the Deschutes River and have been following the redevelopment
debate with interest.
While we agree the existing facility needs to be rebuilt and expanded, our concern is one of scale.
The proposal to build more than 500 condo units on this site was, in our opinion, way over the top. The impact
on traffic and resources, including groundwater would be very great.
We don't expect that a new mall, regardless of its configuration, will be a shopping resource for people in the
region. The existing grocery store is convenient, but prices are high enough that a weekly trip to Bend is more
than worth the effort, and we doubt that would change with a new store. We anticipate that most of the retail
outlets in the new mall will be upper-end operations catering to visitors, not locals.
If Sunriver wants a new development, fine. But calling it a "town center" is misleading. There is no planned
facility for public meetings or functions, and it will no more make Sunriver a "town" than it is now. It will be a
big condo development with some shops at street level.
Allowing this project to overwhelm resources is not in harmony with either the original concept of Sunriver or
the responsibility of the County to be a good steward of the land. Please don't create zoning that will allow a
level of development that will have substantial negative impact.
Michael and Gail Beeson
56484 Eclipse Drive
97707(598-7397)
3/31/2008
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Thomas Roberts f tcr62@msn.coml
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:05 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Re-Zoning Application
Dear Ms. Melton and Messrs. Duke and Daly,
I am a full-time Sunriver resident (five years) and I am convinced the rundown and lifeless Sunriver Village Mall
area desperately needs to be demolished and then re-built on the lines of the imaginative and creative plan
proposed by Silver Star. Please approve their request for a zoning change.
Many thanks,
Thomas C. Roberts
15 Cypress Lane
P.O. Box 3428, Sunriver 97707
.3L-3112nnR
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Gerry & Elizabeth Stearns [phonhom@chamberscable.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:15 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunrive Mall Revitalization & Rezoning
Dear Commissioners Luke, Melton,Daly:
For more than 13 years I have been a year round resident of Sunriver. I have watched the Mall go from a village we could be
proud of, shop in and take our guests both to eat and to shop. We felt very lucky have to this wonderful village in walking distance
of our home and made use of it. As the years have gone by we residents have watched businesses leave as the rents were
raised and no improvements or repairs were made. The first question our visitors ask is "Have they done anything thing with the
Village?" Our continuing answer is no.
Much to my surprise and disappointment the ballot to sell 6.2 acres by SROA to SilverStar Destination LLC failed. The need is
great for the village to be returned to a state we can be proud of. Without upgrading and revitalization of the village, all of the
property in Sunriver will begin to lose value as new resorts are built in Deschutes County.
I commend SilverStar for their effort to continue to pursue the upgrade to the Sunriver Mall . Please support this effort by voting
for the rezoning plan that will help make this happen.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Messer
#38 Maury Mt. Lane
Sunriver, OR 97707
593-6565
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Thomas Roberts [tcr62@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:15 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Zoning Change
Dear County Commissioners,
I do hope you will approve Silver Star's request for a zoning change for the
Sunriver Village. I am a permanent resident of Sunriver and I think their plan is
splendid! The condition of the Village now is appalling and seems to get worse
every year. Please approve the request for a zoning change so that Silver
Star can bring some life and vitality back to this place!
Thank you.
Frances Roberts
15 Cypress Lane
Sunriver
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Tammy Baney
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 2008 10:54 AM
To:
'Alice McLerran'
Cc:
Terri Hansen Payne
Subject:
RE: An urgent plea from a Sunriver property owner
Hi Alice and Larry-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: Alice McLerran [mailto:alicemclerran@mac.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:22 PM
To: Board
Subject: An urgent plea from a Sunriver property owner
Dear Commissioners Luke, Melton, and Daly,
My husband and I have our primary residence in New York, but we have owned our house in
Sunriver since our grandchildren were tiny the oldest is now in law school! longer
than we have owned a primary residence anywhere since we bought it as our second home
back in 1992. Acquiring it as a family vacation home has allowed us to stay an active
part of the lives of our three children and five grandchildren, all of whom are on the
West Coast. Our grandchildren can converge with their cousins even when we are not in
residence. It has allpwed us to remain a close family in spite of the fact that Larry and
I now must live on the East Coast. It has our heart the way that no other real estate is
over likely to capture it, and we follow events back in Oregon with acute interest.
The Village Mall at Sunriver has gradually deteriorated in all the years we have kept
returning there. The situation was easy to
understand: the owners were eager fo profit, yet the rents they wished to collect were
higher than most businesses could earn from a market that is highly seasonal. Many useful
enterprises we regarded as useful could not stay in business.
Now there is a promise of what is really needed at this point: not some attempt to
rejuvenate an aging and inadequate property, but serious attempt to do a total redesign
and rebuilding that would meet the needs not just of Sunriver, but those suggested by the
changing face of the area. A Village Mall designed to serve not just properties at
Sunrive itself, but in the areas that are rapidly being developed nearby, one with a
mixed-use plan that would combine additional residents as well as well-planned business
development, would keep our community from atrophying and becoming a less desirable place
to be at the same time that it served the needs out those outside Sunriver's borders..
Those coming from outside to a truly attractive commercial center would allow the
businesses we enjoy and need to survive year-round with success, and attract new shops
that are not just boutiques for temporary visitors, but the sort of enterprises that serve
those who live in the area year-round, and residents like us who feel we live there
(albeit on a part-time basis) rather than merely making occasional vists as vacationers.
The rebirth of our Village Mall would bring benefits that would be meaningful not just to
property holders like us, but to those in surrounding areas bringing new jobs, an
increased tax base, and broader housing possibilities.
1
Larry and I warmly support the revitalization that is so badly needed,
what you can help Sunriver by changing the zoning to as to allow a more
Mall to arise there.
Yours truly,
Alice McLerran
My husband and I urge you to grant the zoning
and urge you to do
realistic Village
2
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:53 AM
To: 'Betsie Stark'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Please make zone change
Hi Betsie-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGlvv.v~tu (gGlvLeU) Mel,tovk,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Betsie Stark [mailto:betsiesgarden@comcast.net)
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:35 PM
To: Board
Subject: Please make zone change
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: Tammy Melton, Dennis Luke, and Mike Daly
My name is Betsie Stark. I am the daughter of Jean and Lou Dillard, owners of the home at #8 Mink Lane. My parents
built their home in Sun River back in the late 70's. Through the years my husband and 1 have taken numerous
vacations over there to visit them. My mother is now 89 and my father has passed on. This home is now been put into
a trust so that my brother and I and our families can come and enjoy this area for many years to come. As a future
owner your decisions now will impact our family for generations.
We were excited to hear last year that Sun River was making plans to update the mall. Over the years we've enjoyed
numerous concerts and events down there. It's always been a central place to gather whether to shop, get an ice-cream
or shop for a special gift. Over the years however we've seen a steady decline in the buildings; with many shops
closing doors and left empty. It's been a sad state of affairs. I think if Sun River is to stay a premier resort for families
to gather at it MUST do something to revitalize the area. We sure hope you are supporting a zone change so that the
mall can be updated and brought up to the standard it once was. Not only would the updated mall be a draw for
families to come to Sun River to vacation but it also would create jobs to help people in the area. I hope you'll do your
part to make sure Sun River continues to keep up to date so it can be competitive with other resorts in the area.
Thank you!
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:53 AM
To: 'Ann Bershaw'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver rezone
Hi Ann and Mike-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
Ti2VK MU (gnv~eu) Meltovi.
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Ann Bershaw [mailto:annbershaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:40 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver rezone
Dear County Commissioners,
We are residents of Sunriver and our address is 8 Sumac. We fully support the rezoning required to create a Town
Center District in Sunriver. A mixed use plan is needed to revitalize the core of Sunriver. Please Vote yes for the
rezoning.
Ann & Mike Bershaw
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:51 AM
To: 'Phil Wolfe'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall SilverStar project
Hi Gretchyn-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue, I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TPK1tV U (ggv"eu) Meltoo,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Phil Wolfe [mailto:skywagon@cmc.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:34 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall SilverStar project
Dear Board of County Commissioners, My husband & I have lived in Sunriver since 2002, but first visited here in 1971. We have
a very long history with Sunriver. We used to be able to shop & enjoy the quaint & busy mall. Over the years we have seen it
deteriorate to the point that it no longer is the attraction that it used to be. The maintenance is not up to the standards that people
expect when coming to a resort such as Sunriver. The buildings are old, unattractive, & in a general state of disrepair & much
retail space is vacant. In other words something has to change & SilverStar wants to make the changes & rebuild the mall. I am
in complete support of SiverStar's plans & hope you will vote to make the necessary zoning changes & other requests they are
making so they can proceed as soon as possible. We need this done now, rather than wait until it is too late. SilverStar is our
best hope for improvement. Thank you for your time & consideration. Gretchyn Wolfe, #2 Fir Cone Lane, Sunriver 593-2676.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:52 AM
To: 'Phil Wolfe'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Mall at Sunriver, SilverStar Project
Hi Phil-
As I mentioned in my response to Gretchyn, thank you for taking the time to weigh in on this issue. Your comments have been
read and added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TOvvuvwU (F'no'eu) McLtovu
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Phil Wolfe [mailto:skywagon@cmc.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:38 PM
To: Board
Subject: Mall at Sunriver, SilverStar Project
Dear Board of Commissioners, My wife & I have owned property in Sunriver for about 25 years & have been full time residents
here for the last five years. Over time the Sunriver Mall has steadily gone down hill to the point of embarrassment to many of us
who live here. As a real estate broker selling property primarily in Sunriver, I see the deteriation of the mall as a big negative on
property values & if the mall isn't revitalized soon, it will only have an increasingly more negative impact, not only on real estate
values, but quality of life here in general. Many of my potential customers have asked me what is wrong with Sunriver when they
see the condition of the mall. They want to know if Sunriver as a resort is going to remain viable. I am in total support of
SilverStar's plan to develop their property & urge you to vote in the affirmative to make the zoning changes necessary for
SilverStar to proceed with their mall project as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted, Phil Wolfe #2 Fir Cone Lane, Sunriver
593-2676.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Percy Lewis@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:58 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Redevelopment
We wish to express our strong support of the complete redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall and ask that
you approve the zone change being requested by SilverStar.
Thank you.
Percy and Joan Lewis
18 Aspen Lane
Sunriver, OR
598-0650
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
un h1a O ;'I :1=: 1:; 2'IU)" P. I
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
r~oi# & Helen Bray i `fib Box 1726 Sunr, vor, O 4V7707
f0ana: 541-5934128
MoM 30, 2008
r+_rR tu}r_•:J D_i $.b. il; Dow ''}'t.,~.1Offl','L1~a t.,r~'rf::'~~ ."11.U! 6 {~~,.a< sIi" eM fix WPM No
Re. File No FIA 0y 00 iii}C{ T1,67tfi3 3 h'li" ^ thszr' g a
s i .r*?{9 '~er p+~i'{
l~re~
'h are b r7r o r it^yrn7 77.+, ! fi.yS* Esf ~ 3!~ f? f x " i '
5[.;nfire! "'IrId Me
One `Je 4 Changes Gx~. rr a r P S ~
! ~ ,.ate `~~Yx~~~E y y Ylt;. ~rtS-^ sx'xt
- 60 .~Ki.`.6'~
F*,is l~R~ ^S:i +ft f: Jt,.rj w °h r };;X't ( S` yla f.s and to Find sit w g r _ 1..
The fsrcrpou l
f . ~`~y} i' >1J urift"", p,&,r c rp may f_)e Sui,"able I1"r hifp h denw!'v, f.za t}yy ' +ry
f t~Yf i~Tp ~ I:S i~~ifalL'.r..
T € wi.1pdaall, areas, but npi fw i e al.fai olego.n. 3i is WA r L o`'fro d th onp.,
fire rewtarv's :a}C' € •"T; eta visit rtd,)~v ~~wtb 3:z f:- ~~":34 d } + :t ? r r }h,
ref f s iSld~ 1r}8=t
3k i1f !N ry val pr is r.PmwtG1sks`ig and ir.
Tend P°3y,nc s W S 0, =81 to
st't ~{}l( .r af3!iytl..%~ is i(1i ~ .iritt+~ ;:yw.
p,i-"~~.d have to 9 M,r rx,~,r a$ ez_ i_ "j a. r c; j;~j f o~9
q
:.b bon House) has 29 t ;s per sue, VAN b{+~ rn-n TI; 0""",
, .5r_i lt+ ± > {fi?r;y
U Fuse has coy i unto WW" : t ( h 4 f1: _rt
My 11 1,;:1 Y 3 tbe~ any
;havi:i[ ~sl,sa t<i',n f~~?fisay ar EPf?l
.h 3J ok-jt rK: MI, ~ J r...t:rj4 t sJS{•C Clio c Fa Mr Ut r'< isz9:;r r
N i' (and agwn,
tf, } ja;Y i 'no'{-allo
oid to + Y
{ 1ff 11' of 45
l5 fee{ u zl., e t.'o MPiv. c ~ ~tK{ J~ .4f iP w0i t"lr- # F t e,
Wtl'"9 ar and A w the nakw for <4 k'1;:. ~t it is kavvi,.
The t. 1x' O and pas dig apt a.w to b toltait! w.;: 1sh,, and Q +Oki Afdt
The :r:; Wpws t9lrc~e vislurl i Y,'f the kfo-}, n c=eqte"::..
: -he lje-v Z-:.pev ~rnIN, .'S{{r 1a." /~y
~we~%5 the 5 A4, t(~ a-al . s:: ai Sesa as d Ed+.+}. 76Fy:r:if
F , - Ll t [ and oth as w. n fe y vAlrri g cl warty' isito 7, n f` :.,o f T 4,n o,1 Ri ~ #3
- Val y } f~ ~ ~`i ,Ia .ia y `9.
T?'iasn ' T,4"-'9visftFv, a -c"~., rf 3€ I'E'-n",t.3k~ $f sigrITr
c cPF1,.L€Il~ C3~ . ~,.,t~ ~a* ~ :3 s r ~
that h ti? not boon k ,,y the tie,+elojpar, q,
v"1b.r 5 ojinim thalt, there will bev +t-sitte ~°rc:vkffiq:a.n0 0 ~i;vl'A*v'.'s5orv,j t t p
rat i f','4y Will be .1 t't+*T'v'lf;li i!d ffl'"`r;4 r3
th s`-r{, before "hey we qiv i Cf 5cc4k2 ~{e cre'''Me erase
' i ,e p, v po c • r C G :t t f,? a FRi v,4 _ t.* oly ialld #'IijVej ii 4 1 z _
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
.Y r,3rt26.. 3~i r,,~ ? _ ?ti3 r ire a{,i 3c .`t
-_~"v14t 4/ 1d '-.it ittel hf d ;C.'4''il ,'jiitt S! i the r.. .lu1 E„' y nexi -,P the re,,
4. . y
r c`ii1 i K,.oms ~`ti~'4tgiIW`~,' r
u .a i JC~2 7llf,et "kit r!s .ctis ~ be trit.:~tsb 1~' i'3 ..5_'.i _r
by the `ittt? n d -i n 1` f s] id ; `
yy L..'r i woo»d cJ `l the
t'k' [i :f r` f }i r a 1 t OUT T d =r- ` Les 13 10A.-"r ; t{ ~.iaf~ '
i lb t
t_„.4, 1 x7 r4 r'i t. I -R`~ .,rA F`''2 j. c ( f yt i(: » `'l. ,~f 1it`_}.x
. -
' `tlwf'I..q 'ami in 4i f.04t d?q~tw'roun?F} ter r ±.7r t_', ,t; WSJ i ,4: dtS,is ,s
"L tli3t rf}{ Sri d ~fa'a F -r"k! ~~~r$~ Cn If~ ti tzC#_{ lCi1
y° i ',j F t-~ Ct 1 ~~~fe<~
i'°.'&vef1~`7~"e itia# f r h y
pfost te? µ~.}.~.,(~.~fj.~r.e of IN & ~~~Caxw1i•~j~ 1Q fa)'>t1n (',-f1"e I~`~' "p q' I t19,
t4..4.5° i'?`'fit,..:; ~ : '1, .E.ii'•t
o c'G`rt{1~4`~u] # i 11,E ~is33 L }°tt '1c' .`.w.c
~'urit„it 4-''v>✓df t!. di"lq d r r'43 ~tI-"tak e_vs:^E€~1s
esi;nt,i'.~~1(k' j it vt.jTe~ P a"7 -•tc z tc ~ r
1 1" s 4r1 .
pr a r'; , yB t ti.
i A tf : w, 140 S i-.t-°up i.fp g.t.'j.U(. 1 W)1 O'14u. l!I(i ~v- nqa.{i I jc"z4fiik~e;;
U'--.iii t Wi a hQh d.%i R S«' W}9 k
n ;ul, ii 3 j .pCIg the is t of the
best Ophatri
t J7 t a~ ( r' 1i2•I:s f `'.iF $`F` t€.i .rid:^,i3 t} rfz. °°ct thf) j.,t~3':;',`i
r 1w
P 4uem 't! ~ e In xs t'' c 5. the d~'t.~ O v iPr
1$ ufuf. in', ~he e~ n ,SC,f4 i? O Ot,f ~.XJ n2? trr 4 ` t g a
,t . ~ < T t t~ t3 i r t`r, ig
(
v s ,I Y ~ nisH E f >r 1 ti i 10 . )d'~:1' sb f i 1:
iii r.. -e v a # ; ~ _
r mo d..3~.t~r^z~; w
F n.44 and m'.Su ..`!r e .fit I ~a13 f'. hta-
units
* r'pQn space, ,s.'"+ r 77
*Uc a S If ~~osil t' not «.,T .7`I}~. yi~3Z A ikOn k ¢tm';-~ a iC 4 Y'
' ti I !?xt3Ji~ '(n
a a
ii t vcf :cfa #~1 itt' (hogs U MI i(Mtr' S i r or g it ?
Tots may
I Keep We 3'..? lit't"
; t,4)
t
We
I e { ,:rb{ :,ry?CPO `st n;.(; "<"hhtt~f M V2101 bNOC]
a..v
i t F2d#1
s,3e•sf't;i ~ i i ?I:E ~Z.. '!~i ! s..cw~ a l.,ff' y.~+~ .a~ ;fit rt; r }
h'
f rl t.;4 dry ~'iP !z' ? ❑ +7s- a..
~i.:... t ±.t....i 1..?_ t o ii A!i
~~.f ~m J~, 7 ~ y`I~ s+~.-` Y f~# -diY7•n >.G st._zy.~.y,,~:•'=...o=r
O" : sl'• i f Lane
MARCH 31, 2008
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SINCE YOU ARE FAMILIAR BY NOW WITH THE HISTORY OF THE SUNRIVER VILLAGE
MALL, I NEED NOT TALK ABOUT THAT. I HAVE LIVED HERE FULLTIME SINCE 1973. THE
MALL FOR MANY YEARS WAS THE COMMERCIAL,AND SOCIAL CENTER OF SUNRIVER,. I
BELIEVE THAT THE LIST OF 8 THINGS THAT SILVER STAR IS OFFERING IS POSSIBLE. IN
THE EARLY DAYS WE MET AT THE BAKERY, WHERE WE COULD BREATHE IN THE
DELIGHTFUL SMELLS OF FRESH BREWED COFFEES AND BAKED GOODS HOT FROM THE
OVEN. OPPORTUNITIES, IN THE EVENING, FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE BEERS WITH FRIENDS AT
A SIDEWALK BISTRO, AROMA OF STEAK ON THE GRILL COMING FROM INSIDE WITH
GUITAR OR PIANO SOUNDS DRIFT DOWN. I AM SURE YOU HAVE READ ALL 8 ITEMS.
A REVITALIZED VILLAGE MALL WITH SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS, SOME SPECIAL NAME
BRANDS, ALONG WITH THE SHOPS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE AND HAVE SURVIVED.
(SUNRIVER SPORTS, AND THE PAPER STATION)
IT IS WONDERFUL THAT SOMEONE- SELVERSTAR - HAS OFFERED THE MONEY AND SKILLS
TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL AND I KNOW THAT MANY PEOPLE
ARE.
I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT MANY PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING
ON- DON'T ASK ME WHY.
DO YOUR BEST TO SUPPORT THE SILVERSTAR PROJECT AND GIVE SUNRIVER A LIFT.
THANKS. MARELYN MYERS
P.O.BOX 3126
SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707
541 5938333
[:BAR 3 200E
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Dean Smith [dsmith@mountpac.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:28 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall Project
Attention: Tammy Melton and Mike Daly
I have been a homeowner in Sunriver for 10 years and I strongly support the redevelopment project at the Sunriver Mall. Please
vote in favor of the zoning change. The future value of our Sunriver depends on it.
Thank You,
Dean Smith
Mountain Pacific Machinery, Inc.
(503) 639-7635 P
(503) 639-7707 F
www.mountpac.com
Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: David Lewis [david.lewis@bankofbend.com)
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:46 AM
To: Board
Cc: terip@co.deschutes.or.us
Subject: Sunriver Rezone
Dear Commissioners,
I know you routinely face difficult decisions regarding land use and "what's best?" for Deschutes county and often wonder what
to do? I appreciate your willingness to be in the "fire" and do your best. No single issue effects south Deschutes county like the
Sunriver rezone and redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall. I urge you to pass this as it is critical for the following reasons:
• As a member of the Sunriver business community and current Board Chairman of the Sunriver Chamber of Commerce
we face critical exits from the Mall by several businesses which will continue to erode our vital core and effect over
16,000 south Deschutes County residents that depend on Sunriver businesses for services. A rezone to allow a vital core
development is essential or the Mall will further die!
• Sunriver Chamber has 240 members currently and this single issue will decide much of our survivability economically as
a Chamber and as businesses
• Our property Values and Tax Base are and will be severely affected if this rezone is not allowed to happen. Silverstar has
shown good faith continually in spite of false statements by opponents and continues to try to bring a Vital core to our
community-
Estimates are by companies in Sunriver that we lose 75 cents of every dollar that comes to Sunriver due to lack of
services,etc
• Rental Properties have fallen from average nights of 140-160/ nights per year to barely 100 nights. Yes some of this is
increased numbers of units but clearly effected by lack of choice of clients to come here. I know this personally as this
has happened with my business contacts and with my properties in Sunriver.
• What impact would it make economically for Sunriver with a Village and vital core to have extended shoulder seasons
with foot traffic and permanent residents who keep our businesses alive? Imagine a Core community that feeds traffic
and vitality more than just 6-7 months a year.
• Please consider the mis information of our opposition that has no plan, no resources to commit $250mm such as
Silverstar and now a legal suit trying to hold all of Sunriver hostage. In their suit they even could if successful cause
current Fremont Crossing Townhomes to be torn down. They have cost us a traffic circle and now are suing the SROA
which will have to assess all property owners to solve problems that a sale of land and rezone would fix.
This rezone and approval of the language and Silverstar proposal must be done or we will face declining values, decreased tax
revenue (currently $2.5MM) from rental properties nightly stays, and lack of services for South Deschutes County
Thanks for your considerations
Dave Lewis
Mortgage Planner
Bank of Bend
803 SW Industrial Way, Ste 204
Bend, Or 97702
541-390-6123
541-749-1069 Fax
david.lewis@bankofbend.com
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Colin Slade [colinlpslade@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:10 AM
To: Board
Subject: I favor Sunriver mall revitalization
Dear sirs
I am strongly in favor of the Sunriver Mall revitalization project.
Colin Slade
Ranch Cabin 7
Sunriver, OR
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Gkkbridge@aol.com
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 2008 8:17 AM
To:
Board
Subject: Sunriver Village Mall
Commissioners: We wish to express our desire for your assistance in
getting the Sunriver Mall remodeling job underway.
The mall needs more than anew coat of paint. It is old and needs to be torn
down completely. Any plan that does not call for a complete demolition of the
current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over. The proposed
zone change will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential,
business and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize
the Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest
destination.
.A revitalized Village will create jobs, support businesses and create
additional tax revenue
Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes
are made to reposition the Village in the marketplace. Property value will
decline unless something is done to revitalize the mall. The proposed zone
change will allow for a development concept that will support year-round
economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike. Operating plans that
allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the
community to support the commercial tenants in Sunriver. The project will
provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county through higher
occupancies and higher retail sales. Money that comes to Sunriver will stay
in Sunriver.
Thanks. Galen and Karen Bridge 12 Shagbark Sunriver
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: fmkinyon@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:04 AM
To: Board
Subject: SUNRIVER MALL PROJECT
I received a request from one of the board members at Sunriver to write to you in response to the desired need to
change the zoning at the property encompassing the Mall.
I agree that the Mall is a project that demands attention. 1 do feel, however, that the proposed developers, Silver Star,
should put before the public any revised plans they have for the development after the defeat of the proposed sale of
acreage by Sunriver. I also do not feel that those opposed to the development are a festering group of narrow mined,
out of state investors. In fact, they have an opinion concerning the development of the Mall that carries legitimate and
well founded concerns, with the primary focus and issue being the density of the proposed project.
Silver Star should present to you and Sunriver whatever their proposed and amended program is, so a context can be
developed for making decisions on any changes, such as the zoning issue. Voting on changes without a context is not
reasonable.
Sincerely,
Frederick M. Kinyon
Homeowner at Sunriver
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: gary BROOKS [sr4us2@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:10 AM
To: Board
Subject: sunriver mall
Deschutes County Commissioners, Just wanted to let you know I am in favor of the redevelopment of the
Sunriver Mall. My wife and I have lived in Sunriver for 20 years and currently own 4 properties in Sunriver.
Over the time we have lived here, the biggest concern of residents here has been the condition of the mall.
Also every focus group has listed the same. Please lend your support to the "fix" for Sunriver. Thanks, Gary &
Kate Brooks
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Rod Juranek [rjuranek@sunrivertelecom.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:54 AM
To: Board
Subject: Zoning change
bear Commissioner's, Daly, Luke and Melton,
Please, please approve the proposed zone change for Sunriver's commercial area as proposed by Silverstar. Our
community's future is at stake. The mall area can best be described as "functionally obsolescent".
New paint and roofs will not make it competitive in the current marketplace.
The new plan eliminates many concerns that were previously raised:
density now down to somewhere around 380 units
Beaver Drive does not get moved which lessens the perceived
traffic problem
the parking structure has been moved away from the 5R entrance.
The opponents are so galvanized they state on their website they will persue this through the courts until the developed
and SROA are broke. Nice attitude.
Again, please take a moment and walk the mall yourselves and then vote to approve the zone change for the good of our
owners as well as Deschutes County.
Respectfully submitted,
Rod Juranek
16 Hart Mountain,
593-4471
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Richard Cloud [dchibernia@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:15 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall revitalization
Dennis et al,
As a resident of Sunriver since 1991 my wife and I have seen the Sunriver Mall deteriorate both physically and in
quality of services over this time period. Change in ownership has proven to make these problems worsen. We are
excited that the new ownership is willing to move ahead to make improvements that will bring the Mall up to
the standards set by other resort areas. These improvements will create more vacation visiters, improve property
values, and make Sunriver a more desireable resort. We presently reside at 15 Alberrello. Please consider this note as
an expression of our desire for the proposed revitalization.
Richard and Joan Cloud
18160 Cottonwood Rd # 716
Sunriver, OR 97707
Page I of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:44 AM
To: 'Mscorgeo@aol.com'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall.
Hi George-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
Tnv~twt~ (gG1v"T) Me[tovL
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Mscorgeo@aol.com [mailto:Mscorgeo@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:29 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall.
I have had a vacation home in Sunriver for over 15 years and have watched the mall slowly fall apart, along with the lively
hoods and investments of many of its tenants. I want to give my support for a change in zoning for the Mall area that will allow it
to be rebuilt and be prosperous once more. I believe this is a situation where a zoning change can only be beneficial.
Regards, George
George Selfridge
CEO
Maritime Services Corporation
3457 Guignard Drive
Hood River, OR 97031 USA
(O) + 541-386-1010
(F) + 541-386-2269
(C) + 541-490-1188
mscorgeo@aol.com
www.mscor.com
Maritime Services Corp provides and can install turn key ship interiors on all types of vessels including cruise ships, ferries,
offshore, work boats, yachts, dinner ships, gaming vessels and land based casinos from 8 offices in North America and the UK.
MSC also builds floating structures for marina dock systems and floating homes and provides land based general contracting
for residential and commercial projects.
OR CCB #52830, WA CCB # 948Q1, UK Co # FC028188, UK Branch# BR009848.
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
3/-31 t2O48----
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Tammy Baney
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:44 AM
To: 'Jason Cowley'
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: RE: ZONE CHANGE
Hi Jason-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that
although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been
added to the public record.
In Partnership,
TGlvv.vu.~ (gGivue~) Meltow
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
From: Jason Cowley [mailto:jcowley@rusthcowley.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:38 AM
To: Board
Subject: ZONE CHANGE
Please approve the zone change to accomodate the mixed use project. This is important for the future of Sunriver.
Thanks, Jason
Terri Hansen Payne
From: sime@welcome2or.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne; sime@welcome2or.com
Subject: Sunriver Town Center District Zone
To: Commissioners Daly, Luke and Melton:
The purpose of this email is to express our strong support for approval of Silverstar's
application to create a new Town Center District zone in Deschutes County. We would also
like to express our strong support for Silverstar's intent to apply this new zoning to the
Sunriver mall.
My wife and I purchased a second home in Sunriver in 1988 and moved here to make our
permanent residence in Sunriver in 1989. I was an active Realtor here in Sunriver for
over 10 years. Although I don't currently actively list and sell, I have continued to
maintain a current Real estate License since 1989 and have actively monitored the real
estate activity in Sunriver since then.
We have watched Sunriver grow and change over the years and have been very happy with the
way the SROA has managed our Association and maintained the Association's facilities. We
have watched as the golf courses have been improved, the lodge has been upgraded, the
signage has been upgraded, swimming pools and bike paths have been upgraded, the old
racquet club has been turned into a first class spa with the 3 indoor tennis courts, the
fire house has been built, Maverick's has been built, etc. The one area that has not
kept pace with rest of Sunriver's improvements has been the Sunriver Mall.
If anything, to our disappointment, the Sunriver Mall has markedly deteriorated since we
moved here. In sum, we see Sunriver Mall as a 15-40 year old mall in a state of
disrepair, that has a high vacancy and a high turnover rate, that has an inability to
compete effectively and that has not been improved or maintained certainly since we've
been here. As a result, the mall is no longer fulfilling what we believe was the original
intent - to be a place to shop and gather for activities, attractive to residents as well
as for visitors.
Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse and has the
potential of adversely affecting real estate values and the overall attractiveness of
Sunriver as a desirable place to live and visit.
Finally, someone, Silverstar, a group of Central Oregon investors, has come forward with a
plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the mall areas of many of the other
more modern resort malls - vibrant, mixed use with public plazas, retail and restaurant
facilities. A reasonable number of new residential units combined with those already in
Sunriver will provide the density of population necessary to economically support the
contemplated improvements and make it a first class mall.
Although there are some in Sunriver who are against the Silverstar application, some for
personal reasons, we believe that approval of the zoning change and of the Siverstar plans
are in the best overall interests of Sunriver as a whole.
We strongly request that you approve the zoning change requested by Silverstar.
Colben K and Betsy A Sime
9 Yellow Pine Lane
Sunriver, Oregon
End of forwarded message
1
Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now! Page 1 of 2
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Stew Stone [StewStone@prurep.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Board
Subject: Re: Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now!
It's time for Sunriver to move into the 21 st century. I support the zone change for re-development of the Sunriver Mall area. I
own a home at #31 McNary Lane.
Stew
Original Message
From: S BRANDVOLD
To: Stew Stone
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now!
Here's something we can do! I heard there was 3-4" of new snow this morning in SR.
S
Original Message
From: Carol Thomas
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:24 PM
Subject: Fw: Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now!
If you haven't already done this (assuming you are in favor of demolishing and upgrading our decrepit mall), please do
so ASAP. You may get this message more than once, for which I apologize... Thanks, Carol
Subject: Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now!
Hello everyone!
Thank you for your interest and continued support of Citizens For Sunriver and the
revitalization of the Sunriver Mall. With that said, there is an urgent need for your help this
week. As many of you know, in order for any redevelopment to occur, the current zone
needs to be changed. The County Commissioners are preparing to make their decision
regarding the new zone.
This is where you come in! We need each and every one of you to send an e-mail to
the County Commissioners expressing your desire for the proposed revitalization.
The County Commissioners are Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton and Mike Daly, and they
can be reached at
Important facts include:
8 - - - -
-3134,1a200
Citizens for Sunriver: Need Your Help Now!
The Village has to be rebuilt
The mall needs more than a new coat of paint. It is old and needs to be torn
down completely. Any plan that does not call for a complete demolition of the
current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over. The proposed zone
change will enable a mixed use plan that will incorporate residential; business
and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize the Sunriver
core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest destination.
The Village serves a population broader that just Sunriver residents
As additional developments are built around us, it is more important than ever
to stay ahead of the development curve. As of right now, Sunriver offers the
only business/retail mix in our direct area, but that will likely change. The
redevelopment will allow Sunriver to stay competitive among the new
developments by offering a mix of residential, business and retail in the Village.
It will become a nucleus of the community where residents and non-residents
can gather and enjoy the revitalized core.
A revitalized Village will create jobs support businesses and create
additional tax revenue
Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes
are made to reposition the Village in the marketplace. Property value will
decline unless something is done to revitalize the mall. The proposed zone
change will allow for a development concept that will support year-round
economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike. Operating plans that
allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the
community to support the commercial tenants in Sunriver. The project will
provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county through higher
occupancies and higher retail sales. Money that comes to Sunriver will stay in
Sunriver.
We are asking each and every one of you to write a letter to your County Commissioners.
The letters need to be sent as soon as possible and no later than Sunday evening.
The commissioners will start reviewing all of the documents next week in preparation for
the upcoming hearing on Wednesday, April 9. Please compose a letter and email it to the
Commissioners. ALSO, please forward this email to your friends, neighbors,
business associates and family and have them do the same. Our goal is to have the
Commissioners receive 200 letters this weekend! We know it's a bold goal, but we
strongly believe we can do it with your help.
For additional information, please visit our web site at www.CitizensForSunriver.org. You
will find additional documents with great information on the development.
Thanks everyone!
Citizens For Sunriver Steering Committee
Page 2 of 2
3~3-1-~2QIl8-
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Gail Juranek [gjuranek@sunrivertelecom.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:45 AM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall zone Change
Dear Mr Daly, Mr Luke and Mrs Melton,
Thank you for your efforts in making Deschutes County a great place to call home.
I would like to state my support for the zone change for Sunriver that will allow Silverstar to develop a new commercial
area. I know you have heard many times that the Sunriver mall is a terrible eyesore and the "boardwalk" an accident
waiting to happen. Out of town guests are amazed that the area is in such disrepair. The mall used to be a fun place - now
it's vacant buildings and a depressing environment.
Secondly, my husband works for the Resort and provides transportation for arriving guests for conventions and meetings.
He can tell you that many high profile guests are disappointed in what they see. Others say they "expected more". A sad
commentary. Not all guests arrive with tansportation to get them to Bend for shopping and dining.
Lastly, please remember a true majority of owners voted for the land sale, but lacked the 60% required. The opponents
would like you to believe that it wasn't a majority because the Rental managers controlled many votes. Upon investigation,
we find that statement not true as there were no votes cast via a power of attorney, therefore registered owners signed
their own personal ballots. Many of us feel that if you do not approve this zone change, Sunriver will become a detriment
to the tourism of Deschutes County. Let's give 5ilverstar a chance to improve our community.
Thank you in advance for scheduling the upcoming hearing here in Sunriver. Again, I believe this zone change is in the best
interest of the owners, visitors and certainly the county.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail H Juranek
16 Hart Mountain
Sunriver
./31/2.0_08- - -
.
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Doug Angell [doug@hobsonandangell.comj
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:40 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
Dear Sirs
My parents live in Sunriver. Our whole family enjoys the. community, but it is in desperate need of an upgrade. Due to massive
development in the surrounding areas, without the improvements requested and the zoning change, Sunriver will quickly become
"old news."
I agree with the following:
The Village has to be rebuilt
The mall needs more than a new coat of paint. It is old and needs to be torn down completely. Any plan that does not call for a
complete demolition of the current mall will not be acceptable. We need to start over. The proposed zone change will enable a
mixed use plan that will incorporate residential, business and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It will revitalize the
Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest destination.
The Village serves a population broader that just Sunriver residents
As additional developments are built around us, it is more important than ever to stay ahead of the development curve. As of right
now, Sunriver offers the only business/retail mix in our direct area, but that will likely change. The redevelopment will allow
Sunriver to stay competitive among the new developments by offering a mix of residential, business and retail in the Village. It will
become a nucleus of the community where residents and non-residents can gather and enjoy the revitalized core.
A revitalized Villaae will create jobs, support businesses and create additional tax revenue
Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes are made to reposition the Village in the
marketplace. Property value will decline unless something is done to revitalize the mall. The proposed zone change will allow for a
development concept that will support year-round economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike. Operating plans that
allow short term rentals will provide higher occupancy rates within the community to support the commercial tenants in Sunriver.
The project will provide jobs and additional tax revenue to the county through higher occupancies and higher retail sales. Money
that comes to Sunriver will stay in Sunriver.
Thank you,
Douglas F. Angell
Hobson & Angell, LLP
Attorneys at Law
18255 SW Tualatin Valley Hwy.
Aloha, OR 97006
Phone #503-649-6333 Fax#503-591-5036
Doug_@hobsonandangell.com
*The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
intended to receive it. It may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking of
any action in reliance on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this transmission.
I
_3/31!2008_
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Power Team [powerteam@sunriverrealty.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:15 PM
To: Board
Subject: Support of the Village
As a resident and a business owner in Sunriver, I am very concerned that the recent failed sale of the common areas in/around
the village will negatively impact Deschutes County's decision on rezoning.
I can tell you I fully support the rezoning and appreciate the additional criteria that the board came up with during the latest
round of reviews. I have full confidence in Deschutes County and hope that the Village rezoning will continue to move forward
under your guidance.
This community needs some revitalizing and I hope a few 'squeaky wheels' have not spoiled this for everyone!
Thanks for listening and I hope to see a new Village in my children's future here in Sunriver-
thank you,
Roger Wayland
#12 Cypress Lane
3/31/2008
Page I of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Slott, Kate [KSlott@webmd.net]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:46 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver
Board Members,
I am writing to you in support of the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall. We had been going to Sunriver for many
years on vacation and finally decided to purchase a home at the end of last summer. Since then we've spent a lot
of time there and plan to continue to do this for many years to come. I have visions of relocating there for my
retirement after the kids are grown.
I don't think there is any question that the village needs to be rebuilt. It is tired and worn and needs an overhaul
to serve the community that not only lives in Sunriver but chooses to make this a vacation destination spot. There
are numerous new developments within the area that offer far greater amenities than the Sunriver mall area
offers. Sunriver's economic viability will continue to decline unless dramatic changes are made within the Village
to revitalize the mall and surrounding area. The proposed zone change will allow for a development concept that
will support year-round economic opportunity for tenants and merchants alike. The project will provide jobs and
additional tax revenue to the county through higher occupancies and higher retails sales.
The mixed use plan will incorporate not only business and retail but also residential, a mix that has proved to be
successful in many other locations throughout the country. This is necessary to put Sunriver back on the map as a
premier NW destination.
I ask you to consider changing the current zoning regulations in order to allow this revitalization to move forward.
Respectfully,
Kate Slott
#8 Whistling Swan
3/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: CMEREGO@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:07 PM
To: Board
Subject: Maall at Sunriver
Dear County Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to express our full support for the plan to revitalize the Mall at Sunriver. We
strongly believe that the Mall needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
We own two properties in Sunriver: #4 Twosome Lane and #4 Grey Birch. We have been coming to Sunriver since the 1980's
and used to take great pride in showing our guests the Village Mall. We would spend time there shopping, enjoying the
restaurants and the activities offered in the Mall area.
The past years have taken their toll on the Mall and we no longer spend much time there. There are very few tenants and the
entire property needs to be upgraded and improved. The Mall is in such bad shape now that we are embarassed by how it looks.
Rebuilding the Mall would bring in new tenants and patrons and would make Sunriver unique in having a destination gathering
place within our Village.
Please add our names to the long list of Sunriver homeowners who support rebuilding and revitalizing our Village Mall.
Best regards,
Meredith and Ken Khachigian
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
4/1/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Rick Braithwaite [rick@sandstromdesign.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:12 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall
We strongly urge you to change the zoning for the mall in order to allow the
redevelopment. We are not residents of Sunriver, but live within a few miles and would
utilize the amenities and services that the new revitalization would offer. It is hard to
find a decent meal in the Sunriver area, and we are constantly driving in to Bend for a
night out. Can you imagine how much nicer it would be to drive into Sunriver and walk
through the new development to a nice restaurant surrounded by interesting shops? We've
done so many times in Whistler Village, and talk about how wonderful that venue is to all
of our friends. In fact, we're dragging some of them up there this summer.
Perhaps if the new Sunriver mall was in place, we could avoid the long drive.
Thanks for considering this change. We hope you support the continuing revitalization of
Sunriver.
Rick Braithwaite
17028 Cooper Drive
Sunriver, OR 97707
1
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: MikeFinney@Freightliner.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:46 PM
To: Board
Subject: Approval of the SR Town Center Rezoning
To: Commissioners Luke, Melton and Daly
My parents live at #2 Mt. Baker Lane in Sunriver and have recently redone their estate plan allowing my sister and I to have the
first option at buying their property should something happen to them. They have worked hard all of their careers and have
planned for their retirement as well as taking care of their children and grandchildren.
I am disturbed to think there are home owners in Sunriver that do not see the need for a revitalized mall. We have been fortunate
to spend time with my parents at their SR rentals/homes throughout the last 17 years. My family has many fun and happy
memories of Sunriver. As I have told my parents "our generation has been raised with opportunities, technology and financial
resources so if Sunriver does not provide what we want we will look elsewhere". This is heartbreaking to my parents as I know
they have sacrificed for the family to provide a recreation and fun filled haven for the family legacy.
I ask that you approve the rezoning to include commercial and residential so the current property owner can begin building the
town center that has been proposed. Your approval is necessary to ensure my parents remain in Sunriver and continue to add to
the vitality of the community as they have done in the past. It will also ensure that the Finney children and grandchildren will have
the opportunity to continue the legacy our parents want to leave for us.
Sincerely,
Mike Finney
1470 NW 178th PI
Beaverton, Or 97006
4/1/2008
Page 1 of I
Terri Hansen Payne
From: PSnSimi@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:44 PM
To: Board
Subject: Suriver Mall
Please, please allow the complete redevelopment of the Sunriver mall. Jobs of local residents will be lost, more decay of the area will
increase and property values will diminish even further than the national average. Patricia Samuel
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
4/1/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From: Laura Kramer [laura_kramer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:26 PM
To: Board
Subject: Sunriver Mall - I am opposed to rezoning
Hello,
I own two houses in Sunriver.
I am writing to ask you not to approve any rezoning of the Sunriver Mall.
I believe that it is very important to not have any residential units or a hotel in the
Sunriver Mall.
Sunriver is a beautiful, natural place and I ask your support in keeping it so.
I also thank you for keeping this email and my name and email address confidential.
Thank you.
Laura Kramer
OMG, Sweet deal for Yahoo! users/friends:Get A Month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
w00t http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text2.com
1
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
sime@welcome2or.com
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 2008 8:41 PM
To:
Tammy Baney
Cc:
Terri Hansen Payne
Subject:
RE: Sunriver Town Center District Zone
Commissioner Melton
Thanks for your quick personal response.
Unfortunately, those of us who I believe are looking at the big picture did not organize
soon enough to gain the additional 3+ per cent necessary to achieve the required 60% to
sell the SROA property to Silverstar.
Based on my experience in several other owners' associations, I personally believe that a
majority of those who voted against the property sale were either confused or didn't
understand what the issues/stakes were. I believe that we are better organized now and we
hope to remedy that in the future.
Obviously, the SROA vote is not an issue that the Commissioners are involved in, but your
approval of the Silverstar request for the establishment of a new zone is crucial for
Silverstar to proceed. Toward this end, I again strongly urge that you and your
associates approve their application for the reasons stated in my email.
Thanks again.
Colben and Betsy Sime
Subject: RE: Sunriver Town Center District Zone
Date sent: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:42:59 -0700
From: "Tammy Baney" <Tammy_Baney@co.deschutes.or.us>
To: <sime@welcome2or.com>
Copies to: "Terri Hansen Payne" <Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us>
Hi Colben and Betsy-
Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this
important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to
this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
-----Original Message-----
From: sime@welcome2or.com [mailto:sime@welcome2or.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Board
Cc: Terri Hansen Payne; sime@welcome2or.com
Subject: Sunriver Town Center District Zone
To: Commissioners Daly, Luke and Melton:
The purpose of this email is to express our strong support for approval of Silverstar's
application to create a new Town Center District zone in Deschutes County. We would also
like to express our strong support for Silverstar's intent to apply this new zoning to the
Sunriver mall.
My wife and I purchased a second home in Sunriver in 1988 and moved here to make our
permanent residence in Sunriver in 1989. I was an active Realtor here in Sunriver for
over 10 years. Although I don't currently actively list and sell, I have continued to
maintain a current Real estate License since 1989 and have actively monitored the real
estate activity in Sunriver since then.
We have watched Sunriver grow and change over the years and have been very happy with the
way the SROA has managed our Association and maintained the Association's facilities. we
have watched as the golf courses have been improved, the lodge has been upgraded, the
signage has been upgraded, swimming pools and bike paths have been upgraded, the old
racquet club has been turned into a first class spa with the 3 indoor tennis courts, the
fire house has been built, Maverick's has been built, etc. The one area that has not
kept pace with rest of Sunriver's improvements has been the Sunriver Mall.
If anything, to our disappointment, the Sunriver Mall has markedly deteriorated since we
moved here. In sum, we see Sunriver Mall as a 15-40 year old mall in a state of
disrepair, that has a high vacancy and a high turnover rate, that has an inability to
compete effectively and that has not been improved or maintained certainly since we've
been here. As a result, the mall is no longer fulfilling what we believe was the original
intent - to be a place to shop and gather for activities, attractive to residents as well
as for visitors.
Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse and has the
potential of adversely affecting real estate values and the overall attractiveness of
Sunriver as a desirable place to live and visit.
Finally, someone, Silverstar, a group of Central Oregon investors, has come forward with a
plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the mall areas of many of the other
more modern resort malls - vibrant, mixed use with public plazas, retail and restaurant
facilities. A reasonable number of new residential units combined with those already in
Sunriver will provide the density of population necessary to economically support the
contemplated improvements and make it a first class mall.
Although there are some in Sunriver who are against the Silverstar application, some for
personal reasons, we believe that approval of the zoning change and of the Siverstar plans
are in the best overall interests of Sunriver as a whole.
We strongly request that you approve the zoning change requested by Silverstar.
Colben K and Betsy A Sime
9 Yellow Pine Lane
Sunriver, Oregon
End of forwarded message
2
Page 1 of 1
Terri Hansen Payne
From: srhart2@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:59 PM
To: Board
Subject: SUNRIVER MALL
AS OREGON RESIDENTS FOR FIFTY-SIX YEARS, PROPERTY OWNERS IN SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY SINCE 1971,
AND PERMANENT SUNRIVER RESIDENTS FOR TWENTY-THREE YEARS, WE FEEL WE HAVE A DEFINITE STAKE IN THE
FUTURE OF THE SUNRIVER COMMUNITY, THE COUNTY, AND THE STATE.
WE DIDN'T RETIRE HERE TO GO DOWN THE TUBE. TO US, THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE MALL
AREA SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER. AT LEAST MAKE IT PRACTICAL FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS SHOWN THE
WILLINGNESS AND THE FORTITUDE TO TAKE ON THIS PROJECT, TO BE ABLE TO DO SO.
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE CO-OPERATED WITH SORA ON ROAD ISSUES, HWY. 97 IMPROVEMENT, AND
ACCESS IMPROVEMENT, TO NAME A FEW.
WE SUGGEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1. REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVING UNITS.
2. REQUIRE A COMPLETE REBUILD OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.
3. SEE THAT ANY DEVELOPER SHARES IN THE COST OF A NEW TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
4. DON'T BE FEARFUL OF SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR ALL RESORT AREAS ON THE
DRAWING BOARDS. WE ALL HAVE TO CHANGE; WE CAN'T STAND STILL.
I, JIM, SPENT THE BETTER PART OF MY LIFE IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE PLANNING. SET THE
PARAMETERS AND LET THE CHIPS FALL. YOU WILL NEVER SATISFY EVERYONE; JUST APPLY SOME GOOD
JUDGMENT.
WE DIDN'T MOVE HERE TO MOVE AGAIN.
SINCERELY,
JIM AND BARBARA HART
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
1/1/2008
Terri Hansen Payne
From:
Zoran Sekulic [zsekulic@coho.net]
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 2008 10:59 PM
To:
Board
Subject:
We Support the Complete Rebuilding of the Sunriver Mall
Dear Commissioners,
We are current property owners and future full time residents of Sunriver.
Over the past few months we have followed with considerable interest the attempts to
change the zoning and proceed with the rebirth of Sunriver.
We fully believe that The Village has to be completely rebuilt. Partial solutions will not
work.
The proposed zone change will enable a mixed use plan will incorporate residential,
business and retail, creating a Village we can all be proud of. It is a good opportunity
to revitalize the Sunriver core and put Sunriver back on the map as a premier Northwest
destination.
Thank you for your support,
Zoran and Joanne Sekulic
3 Dixie Mountain Lane, Sunriver
1