2008-920-Minutes for Meeting September 17,2008 Recorded 10/24/2008DESCHUTES
NANCY
COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 1008'910
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
10/24/2008 10:17;53 AM
2008-920
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
w
a { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy
Melton. Also present were Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department;
Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and other
representatives of the media and approximately 60 other citizens.
The purpose of the meeting was to take testimony on a proposed ordinance that
would amend Title Chapter 18.113.025 of Deschutes County Code to exempt
existing cluster subdivisions from certain destination resort requirements if
converting to a destination resort (Applicant: Aspen Investments, LLC).
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m., at which time he read the opening
statement regarding the hearing. (A copy is attached as Exhibit A)
In regard to bias, prejudgment or personal interest, Commission Daly said he did a
site visit with the Cyrus and toured the entire area so he would know what they are
considering, in conjunction with what the maps show. He feels this makes a
difference.
Commissioner Melton said she met with the Cyrus on August 29 and spent about
an hour looking at the property. She has also met with attorney Paul Dewey about
this and other issues. She knows the Cyrus family personally and they had
contributed to her election campaign in the past.
Commissioner Luke said he has known the Cyrus family for years and has visited
their property in the past. He also met with Paul Dewey recently.
No challenges from the audience were offered.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 1 of 21 Pages
Paul Gutowsky presented the staff report at this time. He said that copies of the
staff report are available for the public. He did not make copies of the attachments
or written testimony due to the size of the documents. They are available to view
on the Community Development Department website but he will also provide them
to whoever requests it. About fifty pieces of correspondence were received. He
then read the names of those who submitted testimony, to acknowledge their
efforts. (A copy of the e-mails and letters is attached.)
He entered the entire file into the record at this time.
At this time, Mr. Gutowsky gave a power point presentation regarding the history
of the property.
Commissioner Daly asked if there is an existing subdivision located to the
northeast of the subject property. Mr. Gutowsky said yes; it is Panoramic View
Estates and is already developed.
Commissioner Luke asked about the standards for cluster developments and how
they relate to those required for destination resorts. Laurie Craghead replied that at
the time, the cluster development was approved and development occurred, it
would have complied with the destination resort requirements in place at that time.
It does not comply with the current destination resort code as now written,
however.
Staff has run up against challenges since the phasing now required of destination
resorts and the overnight lodging requirements are not compatible with converting
an existing cluster development. This type of conversion is not specifically
addressed in code. The Planning Commission has recommended denial due to the
interpretations provided by staff.
Commissioner Melton asked why the Planning Commission denied the application
and whether it was unanimous. Mr. Gutowsky said the minutes of that meeting
summarize the decision.
Commissioner Daly asked if their decision was primarily based on the
recommendation of staff. Mr. Gutowsky said they examined the DLCD letter and
staff's recommendation to consider their decision.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 2 of 21 Pages
Commissioner Melton asked about Planning Commissioner Bob Otteni
recommending the applicant continue to pursue this even though there were
challenges. Mr. Gutowsky replied that he can only rely on what is in the record
and cannot interpret why Mr. Otteni made this recommendation.
At this time Tia Lewis, an attorney representing the applicant, came before the
Board. Also testifying was Jon Skidmore, Matt Cyrus and Keith Cyrus. Mr.
Skidmore and Tia Lewis gave a presentation and provided documents to review,
including Chapter 18 of County Code and specifically Section 18.113.025, the
proposed change to the Chapter. (A copy is attached.)
Ms. Lewis said that there is an inaccuracy on the map provided by the Assessor's
Office. Part is a portion shown in the right hand corner of the map indicating Golf
Course Estates at Aspen Lakes, which is a separate subdivision.
The destination resort map shows the vicinity and the developments. This
demonstrates that the Golf Course Estates is already zoned for a destination resort.
The zoning allows it to apply for this, and the process is through a conceptual
master plan. The text amendment would extend the same exception that was
granted to Eagle Crest, which was already in existence.
Commissioner Luke said that he thought Eagle Crest started out as a destination
resort. Ms. Lewis said it was a resort but it was pre-Goal 8. The question whether
they can apply has already been answered, yes. The question as to whether
existing development can be a part of that, has been answered twice. In the
1990,'s the county mapped for destination resorts and identified factors it did not
want to have and eliminated those properties. Those factors were highly
productive farming land, forest land, etc. did not include existing developed areas
although those could have been excluded if the county wanted to.
The second time was when Eagle Crest came in and had the County do a lot of the
mapping. The county created .025 at that time, allowing existing developments to
apply. This consisted of a pre-Goal 8 approval, with the criteria primarily being
setbacks and lot sizes. The county allowed exemptions for those. This is what
Aspen Lakes seeks approval for at this time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 3 of 21 Pages
Commissioner Daly asked about the setback requirements that were exempted.
Ms. Lewis said that this is on page two of the handout, 18.113.025, as part of the
county's destination resort chapter, which exempted Eagle Crest at the time. They
therefore met all of the criteria at the time. This also applies to Aspen Lakes.
These two exemptions are difficult to meet once the development is on the ground.
When Aspen Lakes had developed as a cluster development, they had the zoning
and had planned to apply for destination resort status. At the time, they met the
requirements and continued to meet the requirements until the rules were tightened
up in the 1990's.
At this time, Ms. Lewis went through her Powerpoint presentation.
This allows the same relief to Aspen Lakes as Eagle Crest had gotten in the past.
Setbacks and lot sizes are the primary concern. Golden Stone Drive was platted
and approved at 1988 prior to the 1992 setback requirements, and is the only road
that requires an exception. It is buffered from Panoramic View Estates by an
existing berm, providing about 43 feet of buffer.
Mr. Skidmore said that all new roads now need to be 100 feet away instead of what
was previously developed. All of the homes are more than 100 feet away,
however. The second request is the lot size requirement for the existing lots. The
average lot is about 1.1 acres, requiring a lot of small lots be developed and adding
to the density. They would like to not count these lots in the average so the lots
can be larger and less dense.
There was a lot of confusion about the text amendment, and because the staff
presentation brings up a lot of things that are not applicable, she clarified that this
proposal does not approve a destination resort, but would allow them to apply for a
conceptual master plan in the future. This proposal would not address any of the
stringent requirements of the CMA process. The obstacles are criteria for the
conceptual master plan, and are not relevant at this time. It may be more difficult
to meet the destination resort criteria at this point, but they have not applied for it.
The text amendment only allows them to apply and the lot sizes, number of
overnight accommodations and other issues have not been developed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 4 of 21 Pages
It also dos not let them exceed density requirements. It would in fact be developed
much less densely because of the large lot sizes. It does not permit the conversion
of a cluster development to a destination resort. Those CMP processes are lengthy
and provide a lot of opportunities for public input and clarification.
Regarding the overnight accommodation issue, under 197.445, it was amended in
2003 under ORS 321.805, requiring 50 units of overnight lodging having to be
constructed prior to the sale of individual lots or units. There are resorts that are
operating under bonds and may have not yet built the overnight lodging.
Doug's sole concern with regard to the text amendment is the overnight lodging
ratio, the 2:1 ratio. This goes to destination resort approval criteria. The text
amendment does not address building, overnight units or other items that relate to
destination resorts. The amendment only applies to the setbacks and lot sizes.
They are not out of compliance, and are willing to build the overnight
accommodations as a condition.
Commissioner Luke stated that the Board is taking up a lot of time dealing with
developers who do not build units in a timely fashion. That has become critical, to
make sure that the developer follows through on the agreement. Ms. Lewis said
that was part of the legislation. The same holds true for the recreational amenities,
which can also be bonded.
Commissioner Luke said that since most of the units are already built and most of
the lots are sold, what would happen. Ms. Lewis said that they would build all of
the accommodations before selling any newly developed lots.
The focus tonight is the text amendment itself. A lot of people will testify about
the destination resort, but the Board's decision is a policy decision as to whether
the same exception should be given Aspen Lakes as was given Eagle Crest. The
first thing is, all of the golf course estates is zoned RR-10. The area around it is
not pristine farm or forest land. Opponents will say that this is a rural, remote area
and the roads are not able to handle this, and develop at urban or suburban density.
That does not hold true at Aspen Lakes. They will say that these are just rural
subdivisions. It is already a rural subdivision and has everything else except the
overnight accommodations. Tourists are already visiting the area and this would
fulfill the need for that type of housing.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 5 of 21 Pages
Philosophically there is a lot of opposition to destination resorts. The market can
only support so many of them. People might consider this is an existing
development in an area that has a track record of attracting visitors. Having this in
place may prevent other, more remote destination resorts developing.
Bonding and financing has become so complicated, but the County will know what
the recreational amenities are since they are already in place, as is the
infrastructure.
Another concern is water rights. These rights were obtained many years ago, prior
to groundwater mitigation coming into place. There will not be competition for
those credits.
Sewer and water utilities are already in place. Also, the City of Sisters has been
contacted regarding possible impacts to the City. The amount of tourists already
coming to the development is considerable and just needs the overnight
accommodations to serve those visitors.
There are a lot of benefits because of the fact that it is a family-owned business and
not owned or run by a faceless corporation. The Cyrus family has contributed to
the community for decades. Their property is an asset to the community.
Commissioner Luke stated that if the text amendment is approved, is there a
potential to apply for additional land to be included. Ms. Lewis said the Cyrus
family does own other land with a destination resort overlay, but a destination
resort could already be applied for those properties.
Commissioner Luke asked about the high value farm or forest land aspect. Ms.
Lewis said that she does not believe that there is any in this specific area.
Commissioner Luke said that Smith Rocks and the Crooked River were excluded
because of that.
Mr. Gutowsky said this property is zoned RR-10, and the criteria is that it has to be
within three miles of high value farm or forest land. The county used criteria such
as location to population. This does not fall into the same category as Smith Rock
and its high value farm land in Jefferson County. Deschutes County did not have
information on this at the time. Deschutes County does not have any high-value
farm land in the vicinity, by statute. Deschutes County did not meet this criteria;
Jefferson County did. A local criteria was used in the mapping process for higher
value EFU with a certain parcel size and irrigation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 6 of 21 Pages
Matt Cyrus gave some history on how this started out. The subdivisions adjoined
their farm and were platted back in the 1970's. The family homesteaded in the
1880's and have been caught up in the same NIMBY type of attitude seen today.
They were asked to bid the roads and build the subdivisions for the owners who
had them at the time. They looked at options at that time and didn't like the
proposed plats, so decided to upgrade the community. This was before Measure 5
set tax values. They felt that raising the value of the property would positively
affect the rest of the area. The first choice was a destination resort but at that time
there was not a clear process to accomplish that. They consulted with the county
in the late 1980's but mapping was not done and Goal 8 had not been adopted. It
was recommended that a cluster development be done. They had to get an
exception to put in the golf course. They built the infrastructure with the idea of
converting it to a destination resort once the criteria was adopted. They have gone
though twenty different applications over the years because there was no process in
place.
In 1988 and through the 1990's, they added the golf course and a cluster
development with homesites. The original concept was to develop the north piece
first. But it made more sense to develop towards the highway to the south first.
The plan was to come back later with the destination resort plan. They applied for
water permits for both parcels, irrigation rights and quasi-municipal. Those
permits are operating under extensions. They went through the process in the open
space agreements, following the criteria on how to handle conversion. One of the
requirements is to develop the land. A portion is now out of the open space
requirement and is fully developable as RR-10 with a destination resort overlay.
They developed in 1990 the Rim at Aspen Lakes with its own open space. It has in
excess of 75% open space. In 1990 the balance of Wildhorse Meadows was still
intact and still developable. In 1991 the roads were developed, Golf Course
Estates was laid out and Golden Road was put into place. They met as best as they
could the criteria at the time, but when the County finished it was different.
Over the past twenty years they have developed about 115 homesites, a golf
course, and recreational amenities. The development has been praised in many
golf magazines. In 2007, 77%, or just under 22,000 visitors were from other areas.
They are creating a destination draw but just don't have the accommodations for
those visitors. The USGA has indicated an interest but the area does not have
enough rooms to host the guests. They need lodging on site. Other resorts may try
to avoid it, but it would improve their business.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 7 of 21 Pages
They have been good community partners. The hydrants they put in enabled
everyone in the district to have lower homeowners' insurance costs. Assessed
value is currently over $40 million, which computes to about a $40,000 increase in
the fire district budget, and a good amount for the schools and the county. At full
build-out the value could be in the half billion dollar range.
Commissioner Luke said that they ran into this when they were considering the
Sunriver text amendment. Focus should be on the text amendment and not on the
potential resort.
Mr. Cyrus asked the Commissioners to focus on the text amendment, and give
them the same latitude that they gave to Eagle Crest, and to give them an exception
to the newer laws now in place. He said they prefer not to build on a bunch of tiny
lots, but they could do that now. The road setback requirement was put in place in
1992, and the road was built prior to then. The primary access is Aspen Lakes
Drive and the secondary is Golden Stone Drive. It was constructed prior to 1991,
when the plat was approved.
Keith Cyrus testified that Golden Stone and the setback situation do serve
Panoramic View as a secondary road for emergencies. On the Panoramic side
there is a thirty foot alley easement as well.
In reference to resorts, he was born and raised in the Sisters area and was
instrumental in bringing a lot of land into the Sisters School District. Sisters was
very small when Brooks Resources developed Black Butte Ranch, and was drying
up. The lumber industry was gone and there was nothing there. Brooks Resources
saved Sisters. Sisters has all of the services needed, a good school district and
people in the community who are talented and community-oriented. It would not
have been much if it had not been for Black Butte Ranch.
Also, there have been resignations on the Planning Commission and some of them
are here tonight to speak for themselves on the issue.
Linda Swearingen said the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1979 and Eagle
Crest came in during the 1980's. The County was mapped to give them the
opportunity to go for destination resort status. The Commissioners at the time
knew that Eagle Crest would not comply with the new rules but didn't want that to
hold back Eagle Crest.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 8 of 21 Pages
Senate Bill 911 has been passed since then, through work of DLCD and the
Governor. It was a compromise, but an agreement was made to the requirement
regarding the 50 overnight units. Resorts have bonded for this, so the intent of the
law was not met. In 2003 it was decided that 50 units should be built before lots
were released. Nowhere in the legislative history was a cluster development
excluded if it is mapped and meets the other criteria. To say that now those lots
have to be built is putting a property in double jeopardy. The intent was not to
exclude Aspen Lakes.
Ms. Lewis stated that one Planning Commissioner said to go forward but then
recommended denial. She thinks that he was saying they could apply for a text
amendment today but could seek a variance for the road. They were trying to
analyze the legal impediments and were concerned about the LCDC letter. They
separated out the legal part from thinking that it was a good idea.
There are policy considerations as to whether the same exceptions should be
extended to Aspen Lakes that were extended to Eagle Crest.
Commissioner Luke said the Sunriver text amendment was very specific, but this
change would not be that specific. There could be others that meet the same
criteria. Ms. Lewis said there are no other cluster developments that would meet
this. The Rim at Aspen Lakes would not be a part, and they are surrounded by
open space. They don't want it developed but it could be developed now. There
are no residents of Aspens Lakes who oppose this.
Commissioner Melton said the lot sizes for Eagle Crest were looked at differently.
Were they in the same situation? She asked if this amendment would affect other
cluster developments. Mr. Gutowsky said that the issue of ownership is not
addressed in the text.
Ms. Craghead said that under Code, in order to file for an application, all property
owners impacted have to sign the application. It is highly unlikely other
developments would be able to do that. It was already written into the deed
restrictions that the owners would agree.
Ms. Craghead was asked if the averaging issue came up with Eagle Crest. She said
that was probably the whole issue with Eagle Crest as otherwise they would not
have been able to meet the criteria.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 9 of 21 Pages
Paul Dewey testified for the opponents to the application. He was representing the
Rim of Aspen Lakes Homeowners Association. He asked if Derek Cornforth
could follow him.
Mr. Dewey stated there is an important clarification on the background and the
approval of Golf Course Estates in 1990 or 1991. That approval lapsed because of
economic difficulties at the time and required a refiling in 1995. That was three
years after Goal 8 was adopted.
The key issue is whether the Board can extend the same exception to Aspen Lakes
that was granted to Eagle Crest. It was specifically fashioned for an existing
destination resort. They went through a rigorous process to become one; Aspen
Lakes did not. They decided it was easier to be a cluster development.
The philosophy is fundamentally different from a cluster resort and a destination
resort. That is not the objective of a destination resort. Cluster developments have
to have 65% open space. Destination resorts require 50%. Eagle Crest was a
special situation and Aspen Lakes is not the same. They elected to be a cluster
development and are fully built out as one. They could have applied in 1992 when
they were mapped as a destination resort but didn't get their first plat approved
until 1995.
They chose a cluster development because it was easier but say it was always their
intent to be a destination resort. The folks at the Rim said there was nothing said at
the time. They also acted inconsistent with the 1992 code. The first tentative plat
could have been changed to comply. They chose not to do so. They waited 16
years since the destination resort code went into place. They just don't fit the same
exception that Eagle Crest met. The Code was adopted for Eagle Crest.
They also object because of the piecemeal process they have followed, and
narrowed it down. It is a "write it so it just fits me" kind of process. You are
looking at the comprehensive plan now and this is the antithesis of that kind of
planning. While you are looking at the broader process, you should not go out of
the way for this.
They can't qualify as a destination resort anyway. They feel they are entitled per
the overlay zone. Nothing is mentioned in the Code about conversion. It presumes
something not currently allowed. The way Code is drafted is to look at destination
resorts being created from scratch. It helps you develop it in the best way possible.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 10 of 21 Pages
There was a comment about Doug White and the letter from DLCD. They should
testify, as they were clear this might set precedence. The 50 units being developed
first is critical.
Commissioner Daly asked if there is anything in State law or County Code that
would not allow this. Mr. Dewey replied there are none to his knowledge; it is
legislative interpretation. The original idea was to have urban and rural areas.
Goal 8 said to protect rural areas but is was okay to
Regarding the three mile rule, the farming in the Cloverdale area is one of the most
valuable in the area. You need to consider that and not just zoning set into place
16 years ago. They intend to have another 300 rooms, per a letter to the Oregon
Water Resources. There is adjoining land. This is that broader policy issue.
Commissioner Luke said that the County is not in the business of enforcing CCR's.
If there is an application and Code requires all owners to sign an application, this
would be a problem for the developer.
Commissioner Daly asked that signing the deeds with the restriction in place is
appropriate, and Ms. Craghead stated that it is in statute for the application.
Gary Cornforth for the Rim homeowners, who oppose the development, stated that
it was rejected by the Planning Commissioner and staff at Community
Development, and recommends that the Board do the same. (He referred to an
oversized map.) The Rim was the first development; Golf Course Estates was
covered by the same conditional use permit; the cluster development was put in
place to preserve open space.
A letter from the Cyrus' to the State Water Department talked about up to 300
homes, 100 visitor units and 150 rooms. The 2005 plan shows 238 units, which is
very crowded. This could add up to 2,000 more people to the area, and it would no
longer be rural. What they were permitted to do per Code in 1990 would not affect
the rural character and open space would not be affected. The deed restrictions
were to retain open space in perpetuity.
Commissioner Luke said that someday Tetherow will come within the city limits,
at which time the open space requirement is gone.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 11 of 21 Pages
Mr. Conforth said that the Cyrus' have said they started down the road to a
destination resort, but there is no proof that this was their intent. They inserted this
in the CCR's a year after the law came out. In 1991, there was no mention of
destination resorts.
Also, the purpose of restricting the number of homesites was to help preserve open
space and the rural environment. Many people bought their properties because
they were assured that the open space would remain.
This property is no longer the Cyrus' land. They made a choice to develop into
cluster development. There should be no visitor lodging or change of setbacks and
density requirements. They should not be allowed to alter the character of the area.
It is bad public policy and would set a bad precedence for the future.
Commissioner Melton asked if that entire area was to remain as open space. Mr.
Cornforth said there were twelve lots in Phase 5 but they chose not to develop
them. The opponents have no problem with the twelve lots.
Commissioner Daly said they could develop the whole property into lots since it is
zoned RR-10. Commissioner Melton asked about the current zoning of that piece
of land. Mr. Gutowsky confirmed it is RR-10, but 65% would be open space.
Someone could try to amend that conditional use permit which was put in place in
1989.
Commissioner Melton asked if the open space for the Rim was to be all of that.
She asked what the Rim's 65% is. Mr. Gutowsky stated that within the whole
context of the various developments, 65% open space was a requirement. This is
spread out over the entire property.
Commissioner Daly said the property to the west of the Rim was the open space
for the Rim, per his understanding. Mr. Gutowsky said he doesn't know if they
apportioned it out to the various phases.
Eric Porter of the City of Sisters and Brad Boyd, Sisters Mayor, speaking for the
Council, had a resolution to submit, and read it to the audience. They are
concerned about the destination resort and want to remain informed. The
resolution was unanimously approved. They noted that there is nothing binding in
place about the traffic impacts and lack of mitigation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 12 of 21 Pages
Commissioner Daly asked if they are for or against the development. Mr. Boyd
said that they are concerned and just want to stay informed.
Commissioner Melton asked if they are feeling like they have not been informed
thus far. Mr. Boyd stated that since there are no applications, but there are four
proposed developments, he is not sure Aspen Lakes is the draw. He thinks that it
is the area as a whole. The traffic impacts are the biggest issue. There is no
mechanism for these impacts to be mitigated.
Commissioner Luke asked if those testifying could please stay on point with the
text amendment.
Diedra Thompson of Golf Course Estates said she and her husband are in favor of
the text amendment. They would like it to be competitive, to bring in tourists and
dollars, and enable the Cyrus' to continue the success they have had so far. The
destination is a draw in itself. The CCR's do advise owners about the resort
development status and were aware of this at the time. She also believes that the
rationale expressed by the Planning Commission is on the weak side. There are
economic realities of overnight lodging that would work well with this. She said
her comments are contained in a letter. A condition of approval should be more
citizen involvement in the approval process, involving all stakeholders.
Commissioner Daly asked if most residents are in favor. She said she can only
speak for herself.
Eva Eagle lives off Pine Drive in Sisters, between Panoramic and Pine Ridge
Ranch and the BLM. She feels strongly that the Board should say no. She has
heard of other opponents and not just those on the Rim. It is unwise of a
regulatory body to loosen regulations for a special interest. They would be
changing the rules after the fact.
She knows they don't want to talk about destination resorts, but that's what this
leads to. It is a general rule although supposedly only applies to this one. This is
not the right way to approach it, and it is unclear what will happen across the
county. Sisters does not need destination resorts; they are just subdivisions for
high-end homes. The Cyrus' went the easy way and now want to change the rules.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 13 of 21 Pages
She said she can't see another house from hers and does not want to loose the rural
nature of the area. Aspen Lakes looks very dense and different now, and she is not
looking forward to more change. This is not personal against the people, but there
would be a big impact of traffic. Many people were okay with the cluster
development but feel betrayed by the new plan. They have a great golf course and
nice development already, and enough is enough. The Commissioners need to
serve the pubic interest and support the law, instead of allowing them a way to put
an urban development in a rural area.
Brent McGregor declined to speak.
Brent Parks also declined to speak.
John Christen of Aspen Lakes Estates said that he moved from the Portland area to
a rural setting. He loves Aspen Lakes Estates, and it is a great place for his family.
The Mayor says it would become too crowded, but that would take many years.
The text amendment is just one piece of the process, and they should be allowed to
go through the process. He does not understand the animosity. They are trying to
bring more people just to visit Sisters and put in a positive economic impact. They
need more visitors in the winter, when the town dries up. This will be a long
process but they should be allowed to go through it.
Frank Baldwin stated that in January 1990 he purchased lot #4 of the Rim. He has
been involved in the homeowners' association since 1988. Matt Cyrus was also a
member. Mr. Baldwin handled the minutes. The Association by-laws gave the
Cyrus' veto power over board action and minutes. At no time was there a
reference to a possible destination resort.
At the January 19, 1991 meeting, the first item of new business, was an interest in
KMD's plans for property east of the Rim properties. Matt Cyrus said that there
were no specific plans for that or tract A. Mr. Baldwin added that never in his
involvement in those 28 months were such plans contemplated, until 1991. He
knew about a golf course but no destination resort.
Rick Leeper has been a farmer for 35 years. He hears the concerns about the rural
flavor of area. However, no one has done that more than the Cyrus family. They
farm the largest parcels. They got it right with the high value farm land, as there is
none. They have contributed to that community a tremendous amount over the
years.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 14 of 21 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that land use laws are not necessarily written for nice
people.
Mr. Leeper said that what has been done so far was done very well, has added
positively to the community, and should be allowed to proceed to the next level.
Carol Macbeth of the 1000 Friends of Oregon said that they want to prevent urban
sprawl outside of the urban growth boundary, including hotels. She has reviewed
the legislative history of Eagle Crest. Not everyone wants a hotel on farm land.
There are many arguments about the country hotel experience, but this would
compete with hotels in Sisters.
Already in the record are the principals of alfalfa production, USGA hay monthly
quotations and grass varieties for Central Oregon. This does fall under the
definition of high value farm land.. Per acre price for a crop minimum gross value
is $1,000 per acre. It is now about $225 per ton.
Commissioner Luke asked if this price is gross or after expenses. They could end
up paying out a lot more than they can sell it for. Ms. Macbeth said that it is gross
value and there are a lot of crops that can grow there. Prior to 2003 there was SB
911 that altered some of the law. The legislature took out the language about being
three miles of high value land. Now the County cannot allow it. It is the capability
of the land and not what is there now.
Richard Kylce of the Planning Commission but attending as a private party, said
there has been a lot of testimony on this issue. There are several important issues.
The text amendment was presented as destination resort, but all it asks is the same
exemptions as destination resorts in the event of an expansion. He thinks they felt
that since destination resorts already have this extension, no there is logical reason
not to expand a cluster development. Another issue is conversion.
There was testimony from Liz Fancher, a former Hearings Officer, and Linda
Swearingen, who said that they were told that the conversion was the way to go
and they were encouraged to do this. But no one can remember this. It is
distressing that they ask for guidance, act on that and then be told that it wasn't
said in the first place. The concept is an interesting idea that warrants further
scrutiny. He urged passage to clarify this process.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 15 of 21 Pages
As a Planning Commissioner, he feels there is there is nothing in Goal 8 that
prohibits conversion; it is just not addressed. They may have had no idea of or
thought about conversion, but does not mean it is prohibited. Read through the
Gould decision and found nothing that shows it is not legal. This focused solely on
new destination resort from the ground up.
Commissioner Daly stated that the Gould decision talks about overnight lodging
before sale of residential lots. Mr. Kylce pointed out that this does not apply in
this instance.
Kimry Jelen read a statement. She has no grudge towards the Cyrus family but her
opinion is shared by many. She feels this would not follow Oregon land use laws
which are meant to protect the community, water, roads, traffic, habitat, and the
quality of life. The impact will be a huge burden shared by many, and would
benefit only a small percentage of residents. It would upset the rural away of life.
She asked that the Board not set precedence by doing this.
Pam Mitchell, who lives in Panoramic, said that the County needs smart growth. It
is dynamic and will continue to grow, so this needs to be done intelligently and
should make sense.
When Aspen Lakes was developed, they moved homesites off Highway 126 which
could have been developed into 10-acre sites. Many people drive by and don't
even know it is there. Have done a good job of low impact. The main two issues
are the text amendment, and the impact on Golden Stone Road and north. There
would be zero impact. There will be no more homes next to them. In regard to lot
sizes, they are asking for relief from factoring in the lot sizes. This will result in
lower density as they move forward. They want to retain a rural feeling.
The map from Mr. Cornforth does not show the plan as it is all conceptual, and
showing the layout is premature. There will be a great deal of thought into how
this is done. He invited Ms. Macbeth to come out and help farm the land.
In response to what the representatives of the City Council said, there is never a
win-win situation on traffic. Mr. Dewey opposed to traffic improvements inside
Sisters. People do come specifically to Aspen Lakes.
Sue Leek, Tom and Tim Barrier, Tom Parks and Bob Grooney did not testify and
probably had left the meeting before being called.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 16 of 21 Pages
Merry Ann Moore, who lives on the Rim, asked to set the record straight. She is
firmly against the proposal. There is an application to Oregon Water Resources
referring to a much higher density. Two residents of Golf Course Estates have said
they are opposed but are afraid to speak out because of legal ramifications. In
regard to Commissioner Kylce, there are plenty of things in the record at
Community Development. A neighbor of hers, Frank Deggendorfer, could not
attend but gave her a statement for the record. He said that there were to be 144
lots with the rest to be open space. The County would create a substantial impact
on his farming operation, and a berm would not be enough to shelter it.
Peter Gutowsky said this statement is already in the record from August 14.
John Morter said that an article in the Bend Bulletin showed him part of the
destination resort maps and there is a lot of it. Commissioner Luke stated that in
the past the County mapped properties that may qualify for destination resort
status. A lot are mapped but don't meet minimum requirements and should be
taken off the mapping. Others were excluded specifically.
Ms. Craghead pointed out that the zoning map shows it is eligible if it meets the
criteria. Many areas with this type of mapping cannot qualify.
Mr. Gutowsky said that some are specifically excluded. 112,000 acres are
mapped, but most don't fit the requirements due to lot size, already being platted,
etc.
Mr. Morter asked if destination resorts have to be contiguous. Ms. Craghead said
that a final decision from LUBA is if the corners touch, this is contiguous.
Mr. Morter stated that he does not want to have to drive though a destination
resort, and asked if they can be sited in a residential area. Commissioner Luke
replied that Tetherow is next to a residential area. Usually one starts out as bare
land. Otherwise everyone in the development would have to agree to be included.
Rob Corrigan of the Rim said that in mid-2005 he met with Matt Cyrus, who
talked about a destination resort and showed him preliminary plans. He asked if
the Rim would like to roll into it. If this is legal, they should be allowed to do it.
The complexity is due to current laws. There is nothing in the law about
converting, but the Planning Commission and staff feels it is not legal.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 17 of 21 Pages
This development is also a significant financial investment. Perhaps it is not fair to
allow them to compete with others. The final point is that they are not here to
consider a destination resort, but a text amendment. This is expensive and time-
consuming so there must be some advantage to them. A policy opinion should be
carefully considered and uniformly and equally applied to all. Tia Lewis' letter
says it is narrowly framed and is unlike others that might meet the criteria. This
does not sound fair to other developers. He asked the Board to refrain from ad hoc
concessions that don't apply equally to others, and reject this change.
Dennis McGregor of Panoramic View said it is difficult to speak because he likes
the Cyrus'. He received a letter from the County inviting feedback and it is his
civic duty to respond. He is trying to become more informed on destination
resorts. He does not see justification in changing the law to fulfill their aspirations.
He had inquired about the land next to him and was told it was open space and not
buildable, as a condition of building Aspen Lakes golf course. There was no
mention of a plan for a future destination resort.
If he had known this was being considered, he would not have purchased his
property. Over the past six months he has learned that destination resort policies
allow big loopholes. Some people feel lucky to be able to build a house on forty
acres because of a wildlife overlay. It is ironic that legislation can allow up to 80
homes on 40 acres. What makes this all possible is overnight accommodations,
resulting in an endless stream of strangers in the area, with a variety of potential
problems.
A citizen said that the text amendment seems to be different than how it started
out, and asked if there will be more changes.
Ms. Craghead replied that it is different now but public notice was done. If there
are significant other changes, the Board can open the hearing again. They may
make further changes based on public input. She added that she believes it is the
same as what was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Tia Lewis confirmed
that the language has changed since the original application, but this was in the
record prior to the Planning Commission's hearing.
Ms. Lewis added that Mr. Corrigan's testimony was about changing the law for a
particular development. This does not relate to whether they can make an
application for a destination resort. This is a permitted use in the zone. The
change would involve setbacks and lot sizes for the existing development.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 18 of 21 Pages
The idea of conversion is a red herring. There is no conversion process. This
makes it easier to mete two discreet criteria. If it is permitted, they should be able
to come in as such. Then the approval criteria come into play.
In regard to the testimony of Mr. Dewey and Ms. Macbeth, this is an outright
permitted use in the zone. There is no provision to allow existing resorts to
expand, yet the Board adopted law to allow exceptions. The State did not
authorize it but did not prevent it, either. An application for a Code change is a
policy decision in Deschutes County. Statute does not speak to this.
The second major topic is the idea that Aspen Lakes waited until it was developed
to apply, and the idea that they used up all the acreage. The facts in the record and
historically show this is not accurate. They intended to apply and there are
documents to support this. The open space agreement and recorded CCR's have
been a matter of record since 1992.
The plan was in place then. They did not wait until it was fully developed, but
waited until the recreational amenities were in place. This is not as Mr. Corrigan
said, an attempt to skirt the upfront investments. The County won't have to hold a
bond for improvements and wait for the developers to follow through. Those
investments are already in place and are not an afterthought.
Also, open space was not set aside as permanent open space. It says that it would
remain that way until it goes into the urban growth boundary, or another
application process comes along, or they don't develop all of the land. This has
been the idea all along. The people buying their properties consented to this.
The open space of the Rim far exceeds the 65% needed. It will not be a part of the
destination resort. Matt Cyrus came to them to ask whether they'd like to be a part
of it. It was not to count their open space or to develop it. He thought they might
want to be a part of the development.
Ms. Macbeth said something about a hotel in farm land. They want to serve the
tourists who come to the golf course. It is zoned rural residential with a golf
course that attracts residents and visitors and greatly enhances the local economy.
Regarding the high value crop issue, she will address this in writing. This speaks
to the approval criteria and there is a body of law to respond to that question. It
does not exist and is not in the text amendment.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 19 of 21 Pages
Rim residents said no mention was made about this as a resort. It is not in their
CCR's and may not have been mentioned to them in 1991, but they were not
included as part of the development. This came about as a part of platting Golf
Course Estates in 1991. It did not expire and was built.
The road was built in 1991. Phases 2 through 4 did have to get reapproval. The
first phase was platted and built. It took a certain amount of time to file the final
plat. Golden Stone Drive was part of Phase I.
She said she will address other issues in writing unless the Board had questions
now.
Commissioner Daly said he appreciates the clarification about the timing.
Commissioner Melton added that she thinks her main questions have been
answered thus far.
At this time the Board discussed whether to leave the record open. It was decided
that the oral record would be closed, but the record would be left open for written
testimony until 5 p.m. on Friday, October 10, with rebuttal no later than 5 p.m. on
Friday, October 17. All testimony is to be submitted to Peter Gutowsky.
Commissioner Luke asked that written testimony be made available on the website
as it comes in.
Being no further discussion, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 9: 35 p.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 20 of 21 Pages
DATED this 17th Day of September 2008 for the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
ATTEST:
bDIAI~
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Preliminary Statement
Exhibit B: Testimony Cards
Exhibit C: Testimony: written and e-mails up to and including this hearing
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2008-021
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 21 of 21 Pages
Tammy `(I5aney) N jelton, Vice Chair
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
September 17, 2008 Destination Resort Amendment Public Hearing
This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2008-0021. The county file number is TA 2007-07. This
is a legislative action to consider:
• Text amendments to the County destination resort requirements. The
amendments, submitted by Aspen Lakes LLC, apply specifically to cluster
development, approved prior to 1992, that convert to a destination resort (DCC)
18.113.025 (A) and (B)).
The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the
testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may
make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or
leave the written record open for a specified period of time.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this
issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present
testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a
copy of written testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's
discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any
person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please
direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide
whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications
of any Board for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be
documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or
herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity
to hear and decide this issue.
At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that may
be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
~v'C ES C
S
{ 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 September 17, 2008 - Evening, 5:30
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: August 11, 2008.
FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department 385-1709
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
A public hearing on Ordinance 2008-021, Amending Title Chapter 18.113.025, of the Deschutes
County Code to Exempt Existing Cluster Subdivisions from Certain Destination Resort Requirements If
Converting to a Destination Resort. File No. TA-07-7.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant, Aspen Investment LLC proposes a text amendment to the Deschutes County Code (Title
18) to change destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to
February 7, 1992 to expand as a destination resort. Sections changed by this proposal include
18.113.025 A and B (Application to Destination Resorts). These changes would exempt setback and lot
density requirements when a cluster development approved prior to February 1992 converts to a
destination resort. For Aspen Investment LLC, the text amendments:
• Provide a process for converting their cluster development to a destination resort;
• Allow them to count existing residential units as a component of a destination resort; and,
• Provide a process that enables them to build overnight accommodations.
On June 12, 2008 the Deschutes County Planning Commission recommended denial, citing the Oregon
Land Conservation and Development and County staff s interpretation of state statutue and Deschutes
County Code. Specifically, the conversion of an existing subdivision or cluster development (where lots
have already been sold) to a destination resort is not consistent with Goal 8 and ORS 197.445. The
Oregon Court of Appeals in Annuziata Gould v. Deschutes County and Thronburgh Resort, made it
clear that overnight lodging accommodations must be constructed prior to the sale of residential lots.
This standard cannot be met if the conversion involves residential lots or parcels that have already sold.
Given the planning commission recommendation, Exhibit B (findings) of Ordinance 2008-021 is not
being presented.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Allowing such conversions will allow additional development to build or finance overnight lodging.
The Board will need to discuss the policy of whether financial assurances are sufficient to guarantee the
building of overnight lodging for cluster developments in light of the Board's public statements that it is
unlikely that the Board will use the financial assurances to actually build the overnight lodging.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Open the public hearing, listen to testimony and recommend denial of Ordinance 2008-021 because the
Planning Commission, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and County staff
cannot recommendthe adoption of the text amendment.
ATTENDANCE: Legal Counsel, Peter Gutowsky
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Peter Gutowsky
September 17, 2008
Deschutes County Commissioners
Mike Daly, Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton
Dear County Commissioners,
Last February I received a letter from the County which invited my feedback on proposed
land use on the property next door to me. I appreciated the policy of considering the
opinions of neighboring property owners. I decided that before just "spouting off" I
should learn more about it. I attended planning commission meetings, a Bend City Club
forum on destination resorts, I read letters for and against, and met with the Cyrus family
to hear more about their plans and to see their drawings. The meetings were informative
and the Cyrus' friendly, but in the end I found no justification for changing the law just to
accommodate their aspirations.
Before purchasing my property in 2000, I went to county offices to inquire about the land
next door. Records and maps were accessed and it was explained to me that this land was
designated as open space and was not buildable. It was a condition of the permits that
were granted for building the Aspen Lakes Golf Course Community. This was, and is, a
contract they agreed to. Now they want to change it because they have run out of land to
build on? At the time of my inquiry there was no mention of any plans for a future
destination resort. If this land was included in such plans, the county should have known
and that information should have been available.
If I had been told that the land was in a "phase" of a long-range plan to become a
destination resort, I would not have bought it. I would not have built my home there. I
didn't want to live next to Eagle Crest. I wanted to live in a rural subdivision of five-acre
minimum lots. That's why I chose Panoramic.
Over the past 6 months I've learned that destination resort policies, no matter how well
intended when they were conceived decades ago, have become a big "loop hole". It's a
sad irony that this "loop hole" allows developers not only to build, but to build in the
highest density possible. In a neighborhood where some people consider themselves
fortunate to have been able to build one home on a forty-acre parcel, this designation
would allow 80 houses on the same amount of land. The ultimate irony is that the
component that makes it possible is "over night accommodations". So, not only would
we have hundreds of new neighbors, but an endless stream of strangers using our
resources and peering into our back yards from bike paths only a few feet away.
There are so many other reasons why this type of development is inappropriate for our
area. Water, roads, wildlife habitat, and social/cultural problems are just a few. This area
is desirable because of what it is now. Please uphold legislation to preserve it for the
future.
co
rens McGregor
69335 Green Ridge Loop, Sisters OR 97559 541-549-1128
September 17, 2008
Deschutes County Commissioners
Mike Daly, Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton
Dear County Commissioners,
I am a concerned citizen living in the Sisters area near Aspen Lakes. I hold no grudge
towards the Cyrus family. They have only been nice to me - plus I enjoy their restaurant.
However, in this democratic process I have the right to voice my opinion. This opinion is
shared by many of my neighbors in the surrounding area, including Tumalo and Bend.
The planning commission and others have done a huge amount of work detailing reasons
why they proposed you vote AGAINST text amendment TA-07-7.
One major reason being that - it does not follow Oregon land use laws, it is against the
law, therefore, should NOT be approved!
Land use is something that affects the entire community from water availability,
traffic/road infrastructure, taxes, wildlife habitat, and quality of life for surrounding rural
areas in Deschutes County. The impact will be a huge burden shared by many.
This text amendment proposal benefits only a very small percentage of the residents in
the area and it does not seem fair. It upsets our rural way of life so a few profit by finding
a way around the law by developing what is designated as open space. You cannot "buy"
the quality of life that is so special in Sisters and Tumalo. You sure can ruin it though, by
allowing developments (such as destination resorts) that do not follow the law.
There are ways of "developing" a growing small town that places priority on
infrastructure that supports community needs and quality of life while still making a
profit. It requires a lot of planning, a big picture and some effort. In the long run, our
grandchildren will have a safe place to live, enjoy the things that make Central Oregon
special and most likely, the property will be worth more because it will continue to be a
desirable place to live and visit!
Do not set a precedent for others to follow that allows such an easy way to change the
law for special interests. Take your responsibility as a PUBLIC servant seriously, do
what is ethically right and uphold the law. Vote AGAINST TA-07-7.
in erely,
m n ~ 9\
Mailing address: 64682 Cook Ave #35, Bend OR 97701 - 541-549-6567
cc: Brad Boyd, Mayor City of Sisters
Eric Porter, Sisters Planning and community Development Director
Pauline Hardie, Sisters Senior Planner
Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Planning Commission
September 17, 2008
Mr. Dennis Luke
Board of County Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701-1925
RE: Proposed Text Amendment, Deschutes County File TA-07-01
Rebuttal of Oral Testimony at Planning Commission Hearing
Mr. Luke:
Assertion that Cyrus Family Shared their Plans to Construct a Destination Resort
from the Beginning
In early April 1989 I was approached by members of the Cyrus family, Keith and Matt,
and received a personal presentation of a master plan and prospectus for the proposed
Aspen lakes Development. Within a week I made a trip to Sisters and was given a
personal tour of the proposed development by Keith Cyrus. During the next several
weeks we discussed and negotiated an initial investment in the proposed development. At
that point in time the Cyrus family was seeking investors to raise the capital necessary to
exercise the option on the property owned by JC Compton Company (known as Wild
Horse Meadows and Wild Horse Plains). In June I purchased two options for lots in the
development i.e., one at the Rim at Aspen Lakes and one on the Golf Course Estates at
Aspen Lakes. The initial master plan that I was presented detailed the clustering of lots
on the southern parcel (Section 1) around a golf course and a row of 19 lots located along
the east rim of Squaw Creek in the northern parcel (Section 35). The only proposed
development in Section 35 outside the Rim at Aspen Lakes was a cluster of
approximately eight lots east of Camp Polk Road and a reference to "Future Golf
Course". There was no discussion of destination resort.
The master plan for the development was approved as CU-89-70 in August 1989. No
mention of destination resort is contained in the staff report or the approval. A specific
item of the approval, Condition 7, states, "The commercial developments associated with
this development shall be limited to a pro-shop, snack shop, and horse stables...". There
were no over-night accommodations contemplated in the approval. While there was some
talk of a future club house with a restaurant, I recall David Leslie being very clear that
obtaining approval for such commercial activity that would be open to the public would
be very difficult.
The Rim at Aspen Lakes plat was filed in March 1990 in compliance with TP-89-712. I
closed the real estate transaction for Lot 12 on May 21, 1990. The high value lots at The
Rim were sold first in order for the developer to raise the money necessary to proceed
with the golf course portion of the project. It was clear to me at this point that the project
was under capitalized, that the plan developed by the Cyrus family was very optimistic
and that the chances for future financial difficulty were very high. There was not enough
capital to complete the project as outlined in the master plan, let alone consider the cost
of a destination resort.
I was appointed to serve on the first Board of Directors for the Rim at Aspen Lakes. The
first Board meeting was held on July 28, 1990. I served as vice-president until April 6,
1991. At that time I was elected as president following the resignation of the first
president. I served as president until June 30, 1994.
During that time frame I met continuously with KBM Enterprises (Keith and Matt Cyrus)
as the project moved forward. We dealt with numerous issues including:
1. The status of the Open Space
2. A surface mining application involving the Squaw Creek meadow (Tract B)
3. An application for an RV Park
4. Ownership of the water system serving the Rim
5. An appropriate management plan for the open space
6. Deschutes County Rim Rock Setback Ordinance
7. Foreclosure by J C Compton and subsequent trial
8. Bankruptcy proceedings
During none of these meetings or at any the annual meetings of the association, did a
discussion of a pending conversion to destination resort occurred.
The 115 lot clustered subdivision and golf course were approved as TP-89-712 and SP-
90-45. These approvals contained specific instructions as to which of the open spaces
would be retained by the developer as a golf course, and which should be administered by
the homeowners association. No mention of destination resort is contained in the staff
reports or approvals.
During 1991-92 the KMB Enterprises expended considerable effort in clearing the golf
course tracts, moving tons of material to balance the topsoil available for the golf course
fairways, and installing basic infrastructure for the golf course and Phase I of the Golf
Course Estates. The up-front costs exceeded the capital raised by the earlier lot sales. JC
Compton Company filed for foreclosure in 1993. I became a defendant in that litigation
on September 8, 1993. I was named as a defendant as the president of the Homeowners
Association, as the owner of Lot 12 on the Rim, and as an option holder on Lot 40 on the
golf course. The property was foreclosed but that process was stalled when KMB
Enterprises filed for bankruptcy on November 15, 1993. No mention of destination resort
occurred until after they emerged from bankruptcy.
One of the owners of a lot in the Rim at Aspen Lakes testified that he did not know that
the Cyrus family intended to convert Aspen Lakes to a destination resort until Matt Cyrus
made a presentation to the Annual Homeowners Association meeting in September 2006.
During rebuttal by the applicant's attorney she indicated that the individual should have
known and that any competent person considering the purchase of property surely would
have checked "all of the county's records" and that "quite frankly they must have had
their heads in the sand for the last fifteen years". Those remarks were insulting,
derogatory, arrogant, and unprofessional. The ownership at the Rim at Aspen Lakes
includes accountants, dentists, engineers, real estate professionals, career diplomats,
business owners, and senior executives of major corporations. I hardly believe that they
are uninformed and careless when it comes to investing.
The owners at the Rim at Aspen Lakes and Phase I had every right to rely upon the public
record relative to the land use actions for the project. Chapter 17.16 of the Deschutes
County Code details the procedures for the development of master plans. Section
17.16.050 states clearly, "an overall master development plan shall be submitted for all
developments affecting land under the same ownership for which phased development is
contemplated". This certainly applies to the Rim at Aspen Lakes. Section 17.16.060,
states, "The Planning Director or Hearing Body shall review the master development plan
at the same time the tentative plan for the first phase is reviewed." The record for CU-89-
70 and TP-89-712 are land actions of record. Section 17.16.090 also clearly states that
not only can the public rely upon the record, but also the County is bound by the
decision. (17.16.090, B-"Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final
acceptance of the plat of the proposed subdivision for purposes of recording: however,
approval of such tentative plan shall be binding upon the county for purposes of
preparation and review of the final plat."). Neither I, nor anyone else, can be expected to
know about someone else's dreams or aspirations that are contrary to the public record
and the current County Code.
Due to financial reversals, foreclosure proceedings and bankruptcy Phase I of the Golf
Course Estates did not progress to the point were lots could be sold until 1994. The
original conditional use approval expired. New applications were submitted (TP-96-873)
to bring the development into compliance with the then current code. The developer
clearly had the opportunity at this point to attempt the conversion to destination resort if
that was their intent. It is obvious that the County code including 18.113 did not allow it
to occur. The developer elected to proceed with the completion of the development as a
clustered subdivision including three more phases of the development (Phases II, II and
IV). A final plat was recorder for each phase. The final plats show final layouts of the
roads and lots sizes that are clearly not in conformance with the destination resort
standards that had existed since 1992. How is one to conclude that it was their intent all
along to convert to destination resort?
The Cyrus family has proudly displayed their pioneer heritage and the contributions that
they have made in the past and continue to make to the Sisters community. We have all
benefitted from and appreciate their hard work. I have been at times impressed, and even
in awe of their determination, persistence, and unending hard work. They have
accomplished far more than I imagined. However, I have lived long enough to know that
our greatest attributes can become our greatest fault.
The reference to pioneer heritage has another connotation other than the one expressed so
far. When I read stores of our pioneer forefathers I am also at awe of their courage,
determination, and their ability to overcome unbelievable odds of weather, decease and
accidents. History also tells us that unbridled success often turns to greed. Our forefathers
e
killed Native Americans, plundered the land for gold, raped the land mining for minerals,
decimated wild animals and drove others to extinction. Central Oregon history is alive
with tales of one group of people after another attempting to take advantage and claim the
resources, i.e., ranchers verse farmers, cattleman verses sheep herders, miners verse
timber men, developers verse conservationists, and money verses the law and what is
right. The current attempt to change the law for the benefit of a single developer, while
willfully ignoring the actions and representation of the past, is blatantly wrong.
When KMB Enterprises made application for a clustered subdivision, they invited 115
other families to invest in this project. Those people have dreams and aspirations for the
future also. Those lot owner rights are not subservient to the developer's but rather
collectively are greater. The County is bound by the approval of TP-96-873. The record
indicates that there is an "Open Space Conditions of Approval Agreement". While I
personally believe that this document is illegal and unenforceable it is now essentially
irrelevant. Since the applicant has proceeded with the development of Phase II-IV there is
no open space to which the agreement as applicable.
In a recent article in the Nugget Mr. Cyrus cited the water rights application for the well
serving the Rim at Aspen Lakes as an example of why the residents should have known
they intended to convert to a destination resort. He indicated the application is for quasi-
municipal use. As a Certified Water Rights Examiner in the State of Oregon I am familiar
with water rights law. The only options available were to file as a Group Domestic Use or
as Quasi-municipal. Group Domestic Use is limited to 10,000 gallons of water per day.
The peak day use at the Rim, without all the homes developed, currently exceeds that
amount. Group Domestic Use also limits irrigation to a maximum of 1/2 acre for the
entire development. Quasi-municipal allows irrigation and other developed property uses.
This has nothing to do with destination resort. The capacity of the current well is fully
used by the existing development and has insufficient capacity for any expanded use.
If the developer had a consistent dream from the beginning why do all of the following
names appear on the applications, tentative plans and final plats?
J C Compton Company
KMB Enterprises
Sisters Aggregate and Construction, LLC
Aspen Lakes Development, LLC
Aspen Lakes, LLC
DGF Investment Company, Faith Family Limited Partnership
Lewis Hansen and Company, Inc.
Aspen Lakes Investment, LLC
The proposed text amendment would not be good public policy. A change in the County
Code that would allow a wholesale change in a development that is my option fully
developed would establish a catastrophic precedent. Our failure in the past to exercise our
rights during the land use processes does not mean that we will fail to challenge the
current attempt to subvert our rights or to circumvent the rule of law.
h
I therefore strongly request that the Commission deny the requested text amendment.
Sincerely,
David A. Lee
Lot 12, Rim at Aspen Lakes
Summary of Oral Testimony Given by Derek Cornforth
Before the Board of County Commissioners on September 17, 2008
My name is Derek Cornforth. I am president of The Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision and I am
representing both myself and The Rim homeowners in strongly opposing the Text Amendment
TA-07-7. This amendment has already been rejected by the county Planning Department, the
county Legal Department, and the county Planning Commission. If passed, it would be bad
public policy and I ask you to similarly reject the application.
Relevant Background Information
Let me briefly remind you of the key details of the Aspen Lakes development and the relevance
of this proposed amendment to our residents, some of whom will be speaking later.
In 1989, the Cyrus family was granted a Conditional Use Permit from the county to develop two
parcels of land, one parcel being in Section 35 (top left on the attached Figure 1) and the other in
Section 1 (bottom right). The Conditional Use Permit, CU-89/70, allowed them to build a
Clustered Development on bare land that was zoned RR-10. By agreeing to cluster as a condition
of development, the county allowed them to increase the density of homesites from 108 to 144.
Clustering creates larger tracts of unbroken Open Space which are to remain undeveloped
forever. This is intended to preserve the rural character of the area.
The Cyrus family split the acreage into two separate subdivisions: The Rim at Aspen Lakes and
Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes. The Rim subdivision was developed first to provide seed
money for the larger development, including the golf course. On the attached plan, Figure 1, the
19 lots of The Rim subdivision are shown in orange and are in the N.W. part of Section 35. The
pale orange are two Open Space areas kept by the developer. Why-Chus Creek runs through the
western portion of the Open Space, and the city of Sisters is a couple of miles further west.
The 125 homesites of Golf Course Estates subdivision occupies the remaining acreage in Section
35 and Section 1. Most of the 1-acre homesites are clustered around the 18-hole golf course. The
golf course, and the other areas shown in various shades of green, are the 65% of Open Space
required for a Clustered Development. The Cyrus family received permission from the county to
build the Golf Course Estates in 5 Phases. They completed 4 Phases (116 homesites) and have
allowed the time to develop Phase V (12 homesites) to lapse. Therefore, the Clustered
Development is finished.
Destination Resort Conversion
The current plans for a destination resort have not been made available to us. At the Planning
Commission hearing earlier this year, the Applicant's legal team claimed not to know the
number of homesites under consideration. We understand that the entire housing development
would be built in the dedicated Open Space that adjoins The Rim subdivision (see Figure 2). A
preliminary layout given to us in 2005 (Figure 3) shows 238 homesites. However, in a letter to
the Water Resources Department, the Applicant was considering construction of up to 300
housing units, 100 visitor housing units, and a hotel with 150 rooms.When built out, it is
estimated that about 2,000 persons could be living on this housing estate. It is a small city, and
definitely not "rural".
Compare those statistics with the rules governing a Clustered Development in 1990 (Deschutes
County Code CH. 18.128 P) as summarized below in Table 1:
Table 1. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18, 18.128 P Cluster Development - Single Family
Residential Use Only
• The rural character of the area shall not be adversely affected
• The Open Space shall not be subject to development unless... brought inside an urban
growth boundary
• Have deed restrictions that retain the Open Space in perpetuity
It is very obvious from these rules that a Clustered Development and a Destination Resort are
completely incompatible with each other.
A Clustered Development requires at least 65% of the land to be left as Open Space. For a
Destination Resort the figure is 50%. The Applicant has indicated that "only" 15% is being taken
from the Open Space. This is completely misleading because the calculation of what constitutes
Open Space is very different in the two types of development. In practice, building on the Open
Space of Section 35 will use up 43% of the available Open Space - almost 50%.
Why the Text Amendment Should Be Rejected
1. The Text Amendment sets out to differentiate this developer (from others) on the basis that
they had started down the road to a Destination Resort before the Destination Code ordinance
was adopted by Deschutes County in 1992, and had discussed it with county employees. The
county denies this, and the Applicant has not provided any evidence at these hearings to
substantiate their claim. There is no written record in the county files and no current or former
county employee has come to the hearings to testify to any such discussions. Many current
homeowners at The Rim subdivision, who had numerous conversations with the Cyrus family in
the years 1990 to 1992 (myself included), heard no mention of an eventual conversion to a
Destination Resort.
The original CC&Rs document for Golf Course Estates, recorded with the county in 1991, does
not mention Destination Resorts. The Destination Resort rules and overlay were published by the
county in the following year. In 1993, one year later, a revised set of CC&Rs for Golf Course
Estates was recorded which included a clause giving the Cyrus family the sole right to convert
the development to a Destination Resort at an unspecified later date. This clause, of course, is
completely at odds with their contract agreement with the county to develop a Clustered
Development under Conditional Use Permit CU-89/70.
In summary, there is no convincing evidence that the developer had plans to build a Destination
Resort prior to 1992 and, on this basis alone, the Text Amendment should be denied.
2. A Clustered Development should not be allowed to be converted to a Destination Resort. The
whole purpose in restricting the number of homesites in a Clustered Development is to preserve
rural values and create large Open Space areas that remain permanently as Open Space, thereby
ensuring that the development stays a rural environment. Many people at The Rim and the
surrounding areas bought into their subdivisions because they had been assured by realtors that
the existing Open Space was preserved by deed restrictions and would remain that way forever.
It would be a betrayal of these people's faith in the county land use laws if these restrictions are
overturned by a developer writing his own rules.
This property is no longer bare land. The developer has sold about 130 lots and today only owns
the Open Space and a few unsold lots. They made their choice to develop a Clustered
Development and it is now completed.
3. The Applicant claims to have been working towards a Destination Resort from "Day One"
but, in fact, has been totally ignoring the rules concerning Destination Resorts as described in
Chapter 18.113 Destination Resorts Zone - DR of the county code:
• They have not built visitor lodgings from the outset as required for a Destination Resort
• They have not complied with the setback requirements of a Destination Resort
• They cannot comply with the housing density requirements of a Destination Resort
• The Destination Resort code prohibits a developer from altering "the character of the
surrounding area in a manner that substantially... impairs... conditional uses of
surrounding properties" such as the existing Clustered Development at The Rim
• They will be building a humongous housing development on land already set aside as
permanent Open Space
Commissioners, I ask you to reject this Text Amendment as bad public policy that would set a
terrible precedent for compliance with the county's land use laws.
08/16/2008 12:00 FAX 5413851764 DES CO CDD
Sep 16 80 11:054 SITYELS OBLETZ JOHNSEN
September 16, 20D8
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wail Street
Bend, OR 97801
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
12002/002
(5091299-669 p.2
i am the owner of property in Deschutes County at 562 W, Jefferson, Sisters, Oregon. I strongly
support the approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7 for Aspen lakes.
Aspen Lakes has been a very positive addition to Deschutes County and has provided an economic
benefit to the County while maintaining the quality of life for homeowners who have purchased there,
Please consider my recommendation for approval for Text Amendment TA-07-7.
Sincerely,
Kay Danhen
3570 SW River Parkway, #1403
Portland, OR 97239
503/478-6404
SEP-17-2008 12:01 PM
541 389 0132 P.01
September 17, 2008 By email: <board@deschutes.org>
By fax: # 541-385-3202
Deschutes County Commissioners
Mike Daly, Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton
Please submit this into your September 17, 2008 5:30pm public hearing record.
RE: TA-07-7 Aspen Lakes
Greetings County Commissioners:
Back In February 9, 2006, your Planning Commission recommended to
your Commission that Deschutes County not accept applicant driven text
amendments to adopt destination resort remapping process and criteria (TA-04-
4).
TA-07-7 is an applicant driven text amendment that would allow a cluster
development to morph into a destination resort. TA-07-7 Is an applicant driven
text amendment that retroactively permits criteria for a destination resort.
1 encourage you to vote egtl inat TA-07-7.
I have written detailed comments on April 14, 2008 into the Deschutes
County Planning Commission's Record re TA-07-7 : 2 pages accompanied by
attachments (1-3). 1 trust that your County Commission will read my comments
that are part of the record and that your Commission will capture the broad
negative impact from approving TA-07-7.
Vote against TA-07-7
o protect Deschutes County livability
o committ to preserve open space
o respect the purpose and process of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan
Update
o protect water and wildlife resources
o protect the integrity and resources of the City of Sisters
o protect the City of Sisters' economic viability and future UGB expansion
needs
o prioritize County SDC transportation monies to fund existing projects in
need before creating more transportation Infrastructure demands which will
compete for the County's limited financial resources.
For the reasons listed above, I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, % vsd
Nunzio Gould
19845 JW Brown Rd, bend, OR . 7701 541.420-3325
cc: Brad Boyd, mayo City of Sisters
FRANK BALDWIN STATEMENT
My name is Frank Baldwin and in January 1990 I purchased Lot #4 at The Rim at
Aspen Lakes subdivision from KMB Enterprises (the Cyrus family enterprise at that
time). At the initial homeowners meeting held on July 28, 1990, I was elected Secretary
of the homeowners association. I held that position until November 14, 1992. Due to the
nature of starting up a new association, it was necessary to hold 23 board meetings, plus
2 special homeowner, and 3 annual meetings in that 28-month period - 28 meetings in
28 months. Matt Cyrus was also a member of that board during that period. In each of
these meetings I recorded and distributed the minutes of these meetings.
The association bylaws prepared by KMB gave KMB (the "Declarant") veto power over
board actions and my drafts of the minutes, which they did exercise on occasion.
At no time in this period, July 1990 to November 1992, did I ever hear any reference to
a possible destination resort which would one day border the Rim properties. Never in
the 28 board and association meetings was any indication of such a plan disclosed.
Now let me quote from a portion of the board minutes of our January 19, 1991 meeting:
Under the first item of New Business, quote, "The Board was interested in some early
indications as to KMB's intentions for planned use of the properties adjacent to those at
the Rim, in particular Tracts A and B and areas to the east of the Rim properties. Matt
Cyrus reported that currently there are no [underline `no'] specific plans for developing
the area directly east of the Rim plat, nor are there specific development plans for Tract
A other than the current utility improvements." End of quote.
Was this accurately recorded? Indeed it was, as at the next board meeting of February
161, 1991, and I quote, "The meeting was called to order by Chairman McGhehey with
all Board members present....... The minutes of the 1/19/91 meeting were approved as
recorded." End of quote.
In summary, from the many, many hours of my involvement in our board meeting
deliberations, inquiries and association presentations over the 28 months beginning in
July 1990, and from the January 1991 affirmation by Matt Cyrus that no development
nor destination resort plans were extant, I conclude that there were absolutely no such
plans during that period.
ti
_2
W
H
Q
H
can
rz
y
7 ~
LL
o
(
ff
II
W
W
O
FIG. 1
l
S
i
~
fiS, k y~Eyi`a L
GT.~~,7v~~`
'
'
l~~:•~uy' ?r¢
i%l
-Ux
•
~Z
1,y
~ Yt ate{. Ia .Y"
x
Y
Y
~T.
q
'
~
z~`
~
t '
r
,
]
-0 }
l
, i
t $.i
,
,;i
fi'
~
~
•k~
y
{ ~
.
_ j.'
nY4~
L
'
(
y
i
Y
•
k
r
:
ma
; HA.
~
'~yr. S
'k T'
it {fit x
i
a R•
a`~
}
~
~
u
r
'
.r
r
;~r
3 ~
`
AP.
Aj:
l
Y
Reproduces Poorly
'Archived}
W
x .
00
WOW
( 1
aM
~r
:z Z_
, l~ 37 ~i~E• •'f~' J r~_"~ _ ~L•,I
see
x- ` 1
k' q)0.66
l
L _
yy
Y
N
S
f~
cc )Ocu ; eviv r7eptroduces Poorly
u.l (ATuh;ved)
F I G . 3
Paul D. Dewey Attorney at L.
1539 NW Vicksburg
Bend, Oregon 97701
(541) 317-1993
fax (541) 383-3470
pdewey@bendcable.com
September 17, 2008
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
1300 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR 97701
Re: TA-07-7 (Aspen Lakes Text Amendment)
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of The Rim at Aspen Lakes Homeowners Association, I am writing to express their
opposition to proposed text amendment TA-07-7. The proposed text amendment should be
rejected because it is contrary to state statutes as well as to the County Plan and Zoning Code. It
is also contrary to good planning policy, encouraging piecemeal accommodation of private
interests at the expense of broad public policy.
We incorporate by reference our comments and materials submitted to the Planning
Commission.
Brief background on the development.
Because of potential confusion among the names of the various parties, including the Rim at
Aspen Lakes Homeowners Association (my client), "Aspen Lakes" (which has been used for
Golf Course Estates) and "Aspen Investments LLC" (the name of the Applicant here), a brief
background of the various developments is necessary here.
A conditional use permit for a cluster development was approved in 1989, including both the
Rim at Aspen Lakes and the property now being proposed to be converted to a destination resort.
The Applicant then divided the proposed development into two parts, the Rim at Aspen Lakes
and Golf Course Estates (with the latter becoming known as "Aspen Lakes"). A tentative plat
was approved for the Rim in TP-89-712 and that cluster development was built. A tentative plat
was also approved for Golf Course Estates in TP-90-727. That approval lapsed on
September 20, 1993, however, when the developer apparently encountered financial difficulties
and did not seek an extension. The Applicant was required to file a new tentative plat. AD-95-2,
p. 8. Copies of CU-89-70 and AD-95-2 are attached.
~ i
September 17, 2008
Page 2
This cluster development is not comparable to Eagle Crest.
The Applicant, Aspen Investments, wants its cluster development treated like Eagle Crest, which
through DCC 18.113.025 was allowed to expand pursuant to Code criteria rather than through
the Goal 3 exception process by which it was originally approved.
There is no basis whatsoever to treat the Aspen Lakes cluster development as the equivalent or
comparable to Eagle Crest.
First, Eagle Crest was already a destination resort. Aspen Lakes is not.
2. Eagle Crest had to go through the rigorous goal, exception process to become a
destination resort. Aspen Lakes elected to follow the much easier cluster
development process.
3. The underlying philosophy behind a cluster development is much different than that
of a destination resort. The rural character of an area is to be preserved with a cluster
development.
4. The objective of Eagle Crest was not to reduce previously required open space in its
development, as opposed to Aspen Lakes which would seek to reduce required open
space from the 65% necessary for a cluster development to the 50% required for
destination resort.
Aspen Lakes has already elected to be a cluster development rather than a destination
resort and is already built out.
Though Aspen Lakes from early on knew that it was within the destination resort overlay zone, it
elected to move forward with a cluster development rather than a destination resort. It argues
that it got approval as a cluster development before Goal 8 resorts were allowed, but destination
resorts were already being allowed through the Goal exception process such as with Eagle Crest.
Furthermore, because of financial problems, the tentative plat for Golf Course Estates expired
and the Applicant had to refile in 1995. That was long after 1992 when the Code allowed for the
development of Goal 8 destination resorts.
The Applicant simply elected at that time to pursue a cluster development because, as it
acknowledged at the March 27 hearing before the Deschutes County Planning Commission, it
was "easier." The Applicant was also apparently advised by legal counsel to keep quiet about
any actual long-term intent. The Applicant did not inform the Rim homeowners about any plans
to become a destination resort and its original CC&Rs for Golf Course Estates did not include
any reference to a destination resort. The Applicant has made reference to County staff
encouraging the Applicant's supposed approach of later becoming a destination resort after
developing as a cluster development, but staff adamantly denies that statement. The bottom line
is that in 1995 Aspen Lakes could have clearly applied for a destination resort.
V.
September 17, 2008
Page 3
The Applicant continued to act inconsistent with a destination resort when it built Golden Stone
Drive just a few years ago. That is the road at the north end of Golf Course Estates which
violates destination resort setback requirements and which is the reason the proposed text
amendment seeks to excuse setback rules. The Applicant's argument that it had planned this
road since 1992 is irrelevant. Again, its 1992 development proposal expired and it filed an
entirely new application in 1995 which is after the February 1992 destination resort ordinance
92-004 was passed with those setback requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant could have
easily applied to the County at any time to amend its site plan to move the location of the road in
order to comply with destination resort setbacks.
The Applicant also asserts that the County would not have included its land in the destination
resort overlay zone unless it assumed that the cluster development could be converted. That is
simply not accurate where there was no development on the property in 1992 when the resort
mapping was done. Again, the Applicant had to file an entirely new tentative plat application to
begin the cluster development in 1995. The Applicant could have chosen to apply for a
destination resort on that bare land, but chose not to.
Now in 2008, 16 years after the County adopted its destination resort ordinance and long after
Aspen Lakes completed its cluster development, it is entirely inappropriate for the Applicant to
try to switch to being considered a destination resort so that it can build hundreds of new units in
this rural area. It is not appropriate for a development to be fully built out under one set of
criteria and then decide that it wants to be another kind of development that would have required
a substantially different approach with different approval criteria. This backdoor attempt to
become a destination resort after being fully built out as a cluster development is not appropriate.
Piecemeal Applicant-driven text amendments are not good planning.
Aspen Lakes asserts that its proposed text amendment is designed to apply only to itself, as if
that is a good thing and avoids setting a precedent. To the contrary, such use of piecemeal text
amendments to accommodate purely personal interests is itself a bad precedent. Other
individuals or developments with their own set of individual facts will be encouraged to seek
special exceptions themselves through a text amendment process.
The inappropriateness of this approach is particularly apparent where the County has announced
a comprehensive review of its Comprehensive Plan, including a look at appropriate areas for
destination resorts. A major premise for revisiting destination resort mapping and potentially
allowing new areas for resorts is that already developed properties would be removed from the
map. If, in fact, already developed areas can be converted to destination resorts just because they
are in the overlay zone, what is to prevent those developments from presenting text amendments
of their own?
While we believe the current text amendment proposal is illegal and should be denied for a host
of legal and policy issues, at the very least it should not be approved now just when the County is
revisiting the entire subject. This proposal should not be allowed to skate through before the
County does its comprehensive review.
September 17, 2008
Page 4
This cluster development cannot qualify as a destination resort
A basic premise of the Aspen Lakes argument here is that it can already apply to be a destination
resort since it is within the overlay zone. It argues that this text amendment is not to allow it to
convert to a destination resort but only to make it easier to meet the destination resort criteria.
This is a game of semantics. The proposed text amendment is to apply to "proposals to convert
cluster developments ...to destination resorts." There is nowhere else in the Code that allows the
conversion of cluster developments into destination resorts. This would be the Code's only
mention of such a conversion process. This text amendment presumes something that is not
currently allowed and in so doing is apparently designed to imply that it is allowable.
To the contrary, Aspen Lakes could not meet the Code and statutory criteria to be a destination
resort. It obviously cannot meet the State requirement that the first 50 units of overnight housing
be built before any lots are sold. ORS 197.445. Since over 100 lots have already been sold,
Aspen Lakes cannot meet this mandatory State requirement. Additionally, ORS 197.465(3)
requires that all developed recreational facilities and key facilities be physically provided or
financially guaranteed prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. Again, that requirement
cannot be met here where lots are already sold.
Further, ORS 197.460 makes clear that the statutes assume that the creation of a destination
resort is something that must come from the very inception of a development. ORS 197.460
requires that important natural features shall be retained and that improvements and activities
shall be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on surrounding lands. Since
there has been such extensive development already at Aspen Lakes, it is too late for the
improvements and activities to be located and designed as required by the statute.
Furthermore, Aspen Lakes acknowledges that it cannot meet the County Code destination resort
requirements for setbacks and lot sizes. In addition, many provisions of the Code anticipate a
development starting from scratch. DCC 18.133.050(A)(1) refers to acres "to be developed as a
planned destination resort," and .050(B)(1) and (5) require a showing of how natural features and
open space will be preserved in each phase with an initial inventory of natural features. All of
this is for naught where the cluster development that is to become the destination resort has
already been built.
Finally, DCC 18.113.020(A) clearly states that the provisions of DCC 18.113 "shall not apply to
any development proposal in an area designated DR other than a destination resort." That
provision is directly contrary to the proposed change of DCC 18.113.025 to allow for cluster
developments here.
This proposal could open the door to extensive new development in the area.
In an attached letter to the Oregon Water Resources Department, the Applicant refers to planning
an additional 300 homes, 100 condominium units and 150 motel units as part of an eventual
September 17, 2008
Page 5
destination resort. This constitutes a development virtually five times what is currently present
at Aspen Lakes. The potential for development does not stop there, however, as the Applicant
would most likely then try to expand to other nearby lands owned by the family which are in the
destination resort overlay zone. See materials I submitted to the City of Sisters regarding
potential impacts to the city by a destination resort on this site.
This text amendment proposal is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goals or the
County Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons explained above, this text amendment is not consistent with the Goal 8
requirements of overnight housing and other requirements that are repeated in the state statutes
discussed above. The proposal also violates the Goal 2 consistency requirements and Goal 14.
Furthermore, the application is not consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan Chapter
23.84 and in particular with regard to Policy 2 regarding buffers.
Conclusion.
We respectfully request the Board to deny this proposed text amendment. There is simply no
basis to extend the rights given to Eagle Crest to this Applicant where Eagle Crest was already a
destination resort and Aspen Lakes is not. For all of the reasons discussed above, the application
should be denied. Please provide us with any written decision on this matter.
Very truly yours,
71 D7"~Z
PAUL DEWEY
PD:ao
Attachment
cc: Client
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NO. CU-89-70
APPLICANT: Sisters Aggregate and Construction
17203 Highway #126
Sisters, OR 97759
REQUEST: An application (as amended) for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow a cluster development of
144 lots in a replat of Wild Horse Plains and
Wild Horse Meadows Subdivision in an RR-10,
Rural Residential Zone.
PLANNING STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Chuck McGraw
BURDEN OF PROOF: The applicant must establish that the
Conditional Use Permit conforms with the
requirements of Sections 1.030, 4.120, 8.030
and 8.050 of PL-15, the Deschutes County
Zoning Ordinance.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
1. LOCATION:
The subject lands are located in Township 15 South, Range 10
East, Section 1, and Township 14 South, Range 10 East,
Section 35, the closest intersection being Highway 126 and
Camp Polk Road..
2. ZONE:
The subject property is zoned RR-10, Rural Residential, and
is designated as Rural Residential by.the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan. Zoning in the surrounding area consists
of RR-10 to the north and east of Township 14, Range 10,
Section 35 and to the north and southwest of Township 15,
Range 10, Section 1; EFU-40 to the southeast and east of
Township 15, Range 10, Section 1; EFU-20 to the south-
southwest of Township 15, Range 10, Section 1 and F-3 to the
southwest of Township 14, Range 10, Section 35.
HEARING AND EXHIBITS
The hearing was held on July 18 and
Deschutes County Administration Building.
make up the record in this matter:
A. Application;
B. Proposed Plan;
C. Burden of Proof Statement;
D. Colored maps;
-1- FINDINGS AND DECISION
August 1, 1989, at the
The following exhibits
Exhibit
Page ---L-
E. Memorandum of meeting between the applicant and
representatives of Deschutes County and the Cloverdale
Fire Protection District;
F. Watermaster's response;
G. Public Works Memorandum;
H. Martin Hansen letter dated July 28, 1989;
I. Public Works Memorandum dated June 14, 1989;
J. Fish & Wildlife letter dated June 15, 1989;
K. Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District letter dated
July 14, 1989;
L. Basim letter dated July 17, 1989;
M. Squaw Creek Irrigation letter dated August 1, 1989;
N. Pepitone letter;
0. Kay Knott letter dated July 27, 1989;
P. Robert Gragg letter dated July 13, 1989;
Q. Rural Preservation Committee letter dated August 1,
1989; and
R. Staff Report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is composed of two recorded
subdivisions; Wild Horse Meadows contains approximately 500
plus or minus acres and Wild Horse Plains contains
approximately 600 plus or minus acres. The topography of
Wild Horse Meadows consists of two land form units, the
first is the valley formed by Squaw Creek and the second
unit is the rims above Squaw Creek. Wild Horse Plains
topography consists of small, rolling hills interspersed with
shallow draws. The vegetative cover consists of cheat
grass, sage and bitterbrush, juniper and some pine trees
scattered throughout both subdivisions.
2. Land uses in the surrounding area consist of both rural
residential and agricultural uses. The residential uses are
primarily centered in adjoining rural subdivisions to the
north and west of the site. The agricultural uses consist
of raising hay crops and livestock grazing.
3. The applicant is proposing to cluster develop approximately
144 single family residential lots in conjunction with a
previously approved golf course located in the Wild Horse
Meadows Subdivision. Approximately 144 new dwelling units
would be created by this proposal and access to both sites
would be off of Camp Polk Road. Camp Polk Road is
identified in the Deschutes County Transportation Plan as
being a rural collector street intended primarily for the
movement of traffic between the local streets in the area
and the principal arterial road of Highway 126.
4. The Planning Division received the following transmittal
responses:
Exhibit
-2- FINDINGS AND DECISION Page-AL
A.
The County Public Works Department states the following
conditions for the proposed cluster development:
1. An access permit must be obtained from the County
for any new access to Camp Polk Road.
2. The eight (8) lot portion of the Wild Horse Plains
Subdivision lying west of Camp Polk Road adjoining
Highway 126 is to be vacated prior to any
development of the proposed R. V. park on the west
side of Camp Polk Road.
3. The private road system serving this development
and taking access from Camp Polk Road must meet
standards for private roads set forth in Section
8.130 of the Deschutes County Subdivision-
Partition Ordinance.
4. All the private roads to be built within this
development are to be maintained by the owner-
developer of the cluster development.
5. All private roads are to be constructed and
maintained in a condition to allow access for
emergency fire, police and ambulance vehicles to
reach all parts of the development.
6. The proposed fairways on holes 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13
are to be checked for safety to motorists using
Camp Polk Road and Highway 126. The appropriate
golf course design standards recognized in the
industry must be met by the location of the tee
areas and fairways in relationship to these County
and State Roads. Severely hook or sliced golf
balls could otherwise cause potential safety
problems for motorists on these two roads running
parallel to the fairways.
7. The existing 92 lot Wild Horse Plains Subdivision
is to be vacated prior to the development of the
golf course/cluster development.
8. A temporary turn around is to be provided at the
south end of the road taking access from the west
side of Camp Polk Road and running parallel to
Squaw Creek.
9. All lots taking access directly to Camp Polk Road
will have shared driveways to reduce the number of
access points on this collector road.
-3- FINDINGS AND DECISION
Exhibit
Page
10. All lots taking direct access from Camp Polk Rod
are to have turn arounds for vehicles so that
vehicles will not have to back onto this collector
road.
NOTE: The existing acute angle intersection of Camp
Polk Road and Highway 126 is to be reviewed by the
Oregon Department of Transportation. Any changes that
need to be made at this intersection are to be approved
by O-DOT.
A subdivision plat will need to be submitted at a later
time for review for this proposed 130 lot cluster
development.
B. The County Environmental Health Division states that a
Site Evaluation Report of Suitability. for Sewage
Disposal must be completed on those lots which have
been revised from the original plat and replat of 1981.
C. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife states in
their letter of June 15, 1989, that they have three
major concerns regarding the proposed cluster
development:
1. Neither set of proposed clustering addresses
animal movement opportunities; animal movement
corridors must be left free of structures and
remain in natural vegetation for screening of
animals while traveling through the area.
2. Fences, except for those
residential yard, must be
safe movement through it.
used. Requested fences no
with the bottom strand
ground. Center portion of
immediately
constructed
Smooth wire
higher than
18 inches
fence equally
around a
to allow
is to be
48 inches
above the
divided.
3. No dogs will be allowed to roam at large.
D. The Watermaster's office states that if any portion of
the subdivision is subdivided, then the exact amount of
adjudicated water rights must also be divided.
E. The Sisters Fire Department and Cloverdale Rural Fire
Department had the following. concerns:
1. The proposed loop road system makes response to
emergency situations very difficult;
2. There needs to be more than one access or exit
point to the development;
Exhibit -
-4- FINDINGS AND DECISION
Page
3. Fire hydrants are necessary and should not be
located less than 300 feet from residences;
4. Recommend a minimum flow from any water supply
system of not less than 750 gallons per minute
(gpm) ;
5. If a community water system is proposed at some
time in the future, an effort should be made to
tie-in the phased development percentage to an
upgraded, higher capacity system; and
6. The applicant's Burden of Proof states that the
cluster development involves 130 lots; however,
the number of lots shown on the Master Plat totals
151 plus or minus. This discrepancy needs to be
resolved.
5. At the hearing the applicant indicated that on a basis of 7
1/2 acres per lot there would be 144 lots allowed with this
Conditional Use. The Hearings officer anticipates that the
final plat will define specifically how many lots will be
involved in this cluster development.
6. At the hearing a number of issues were raised concerning the
scope of the development. The Hearings officer bases his
decision on the following considerations:
A. This proposal does not provide for any development in
the flood plain.
B. This proposal does not include any provision for an
R. V. Park.
C. This development includes limited commercial
development. That commercial development includes a
pro shop, a snack shop and horse corrals. Any other
commercial development would be subject to further
review.
D. Access to the development west of Camp Polk Road would
require a single driveway for every two lots.
7:. At the hearing on July 18th Charles Trachsel of the
Cloverdale Fire Department indicated that many of the
concerns that they had expressed in their correspondence had
been addressed by the applicant, and that the applicant was
willing to work with the Fire Protection District on the
specific design of a loop road system so as to alleviate any
confusion on addresses.
-5- FINDINGS AND DECISION
&-hibit
Page
CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS
1. Conformance with Section 8.050 (16) of PL-15.
A. Such uses may be authorized as a Conditonal use only
after consideration of the following factors:
1. Need for residential uses in the immediate area of
the proposed development.
The Wild Horse Plains and Wild Horse Meadows
Subdivisions are existing platted subdivisions
with approximately 50 lots in each. This proposal
is simply a reconfiguration and replat of the
existing subdivision.
2. Environmental, social and economic impacts likely
to result from the development, including impacts
on public facilities such as schools and roads.
There should be no greater adverse environmental,
social or economic impacts as a result of this
development compared to the existing approved
subdivision. By proposing to cluster the
development of the 144 lots, substantially more
open space will be preserved. The property has
been approved for standard septic systems with
drainfields and a community water system.
3. Effect of the development on the rural character
of the area.
Given the fact that these two subdivisions are
legally platted and are subject to development,
the proposed cluster development and the
accompanying open space should protect the rural
character of the area. One important rural
characteristic the proposal needs to keep in mind
is that animal movement corridors must be
available and left free of structures and adequate
screening left or provide cover for animals
through the area.
4. Effect of the development on agriculture,
forestry, wildlife or other natural resource uses
in the area.
As identified in the above Section 3, the proposed
cluster development, in conjunction with the open
space of the golf course, will have the impact of
providing more open space that could be used for
wildlife habitat, potential small wood lot
development and scenic enjoyment.
-6- FINDINGS AND DECISION
Exhibit
page -4--
Noting the fact that this area is marginal at best
for both agriculture and production of forest
products, the proposed cluster development should
not have a significant adverse impact on these or
other natural resources in the area.
B. The Conditional Use shall not be granted unless the
following findings are made:
1. Human activities, including all development and
alterations of the natural landscape, will be
limited to 35% of the land and 65% of will be kept
in open space uses. In the Forest Use Zone,
development shall be limited to 25% of the land
with 75% to be retained in open space. The area
of the development shall be measured by drawing a
continuous line around the affected area 150 feet
on either side of any lot, building, road or other
such facility.
As proposed in the Master Plan, all human
activities, including development will be limited
to 35% of the land and more than the required 65%
will be kept in open space uses.
2. Uses permitted in the open space area may include
the management of natural resources, trail systems
or other outdoor uses that are consistent with the
character of the natural landscape.
The proposed uses identified to occur in the open
space area include the golf course and animal
movement corridors. Both of these uses are
consistent with the current character of the
natural landscape.
3. All lots within the development shall be
contiguous to one another except for occasional
corridors which shall -not be wider than the
average lot width, unless the Hearings Body finds
that special circumstances warrant a wider
corridor.
All lots will be contiguous, except for the
required animal movement and other needed
corridors as shown on the Master Plan.
4. In the resource and rural zones, the cluster
development shall be located on the least
productive land.
-7- FINDINGS AND DECISION
Fixhibii
)5--
Page -
The property is currently not designated or
identified as containing any significant resource
zones. There is no part of this property, other
than the riparian zones adjacent to Squaw Creek,
that is more productive than any other part. The
proposed Master Plan shows no development
occurring along Squaw Creek.
5. All subdivision requirements contained in County
Ordinance 81-043 shall be met.
The applicant has agreed that all subdivision
requirements of County Ordinance 81-043 shall be
met.
6. The open space of the proposed development may be
platted as a separate parcel or in common
ownership of some or all of the clustered units;
however, the open area shall not be subject to
development unless the whole development is
brought inside an urban growth boundary.
No part of the open space of the proposed
development will be subject to further
development, except for uses permitted in open
spaces within the County, including, but not
limited to, golf courses.
7. The rural character of the area should not be
adversely affected due to the clustering of the
development within a legally platted subdivision
around an approved golf course.
BASED UPON the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Hearings Officer
hereby APPROVES the application for a Conditional Use Permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. All requirements of the County Building/Safety Division
and/or the State of Oregon shall be met.
2. All requirements of the County Environmental Health
Division and/or State of Oregon shall be met.
3. All requirements of the Sisters and Cloverdale Rural
Fire Departments shall be met.
4. All conditions identified in the June 15, 1989 letter
from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shall
be met.
5. All water rights appurtenant to the site shall be
divided according to the requirements of the State
:Jatermaster's office.
-8- FINDINGS AND DECISION Exnio't
Page
6. All improvements required by the Oregon State Highway
Division regarding the intersection of Camp Polk Road
and Highway 126 shall be implemented.
7. The commercial developments associated with this
development shall be limited to a pro shop, snack shop
and horse stables unless further approval is obtained.
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of
Ordinance 81-043,. the Deschutes County Subdivision
Ordinance.
9. Except for No. 2 of their recommended conditions, the
applicant shall comply with the conditions set forth in
the memorandum of the Deschutes County Public Works
Department.
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE MAILED, UNLESS
APPEALED.
DATED and MAILED this Sth day of August, 1989.
/s/ EDWARD P. FITCH
EDWARD P. FITCH
Hearings Officer
CC: BOCC
Deschutes County Planning Director
Deschutes County Planning Commission
Martin Hansen
Tygh Redfield
Robert L. Gragg
Kay Knott
Andy and Jackie Pepitone
Squaw Creek Irrigation District
Mrs. M. C. Basim
Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District
Richard Ward
-9- FINDINGS AND DECISION
Exhibit F
Page
~oTES Q
0 } .?"I 1 cis { `
March 3, 1995
KMB Enterprises
17204 Highway 126
Sisters, OR 97759
Community Development Department
Wministra 2 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701
t~r:a
3
~ 46.>. (5031388-6575
Ct Planning Division
ry/J u j Building Safety Division
co Environmental Health Division
N D CHL M
cou" ~Gj
RE: Administrative Determination, County File No. AD-95-2
Dear Sirs:
KMB Enterprises has requested an administrative
determination, pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County
Code, Development Procedures ordinance, regarding the
following questions:
1) What is the status of the 31 lots in the Wild Horse
Meadows Subdivision?
2) What is the status of the 43 lots platted in the
Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes Phase I
Subdivision?
3) What is the status of the "The Rim at Aspen Lakes
Subdivision?
4) Did KMB Enterprises "exercise" their permit for the
Aspen Lakes golf course?
The applicant submitted the following information with this
application:
1. Letter dated 1/24/95 from J. Massey, applicant's
attorney..
2. Application form with Exhibits A and B.
3. Aspen Lakes Development chronology.
4. Narrative statement (same as Exhibit B)
5. Affidavit of Matt Cyrus with Attachment A.
AD-95-2
Page 1
6. Letter dated 12/29/94 from W.L. Overdorf & Associates,
Golf Course Architects.
7. 12 color photographs of course preparation.
8. Copies of six land use approvals and two letters of
correspondence from Deschutes County.
9. Title report dated May 12, 1994.
10. Assessed value tabulation.
Overview
The subject property is located north of Highway 126 and east
of Sisters and is traversed by Camp Polk Road. The overall
project is now referred to as the Aspen Lakes Development.
in July, 1988, the applicant received approval to construct
an 18-hole golf course (CU-88-77). Nine additional holes
were approved in 1989 (CU-89-153). On August 8, 1989, the
applicant received land use approval (CU-89-70) allowing a
cluster subdivision development of 144 lots in a replat of
Wild Horse Plains (560 acres) and Wild Horse Meadows (44
lots, 524 acres) subdivisions.
This decision reviews and answers each of the four questions
raised by the applicant. The county mailed notice of this
application to adjacent property owners pursuant to Title 22,
Development Procedures Ordinance. Written testimony was
submitted to the county by Tuesday, February 21 (Monday, the
published deadline, was a legal holiday) from several parties
(See Exhibit A). Comments received are incorporated herein
by reference and are described below when applicable to a
particular issue.
Lots in the Wild Horse Meadows Subdivision
The Wild Horse Meadows subdivision was platted in 1979. The
subdivision contained 44 lots at that time. The final plat
for The Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision, recorded in 1990 as
part of the overall cluster development on the subject
property (CU-89-79), reconfigured a portion of this
subdivision into 19 cluster lots and three open space tracts
on the west side of Camp Polk Road. The remaining 31 lots, 8
on the west side of the road and 23 to the east, were not
reconfigured on this final plat.
The following comments were received regarding this issue:
A. The Rim at Aspen Lakes Association, Inc.:
AD-95-2
Page 2
In a letter dated February 10, 1995 signed by Derek
Conforth, President, the association indicates "It
is also our understanding that the land on the east
side of Camp Polk Road is currently designated as
Open Space on the Master Plan for the Aspen Lakes
development."
B. David Lee, owner of Lot 12, The Rim at Aspen Lakes:
In a letter dated February 17, 1995, Mr. Lee states:
"The Rim at Aspen Lakes development was the first
phase of the implementation of the Master Plan for
the Aspen Lakes Development (CU-89-70). A
clustered subdivision was created by replatting
Lots 3, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Block 8 and Lots 1,
2, 3 and 4 of Block 10 of the plat of Wild Horse -
Meadows. It was the intent of the Master Plan to
vacate all of the remaining lots of Wild Horse
Meadows in order to create open space and allow for
the transfer of allowed development density to the
clustered development around the golf course at
Aspen Lakes. Wild Horse Meadows meets the criteria
of ORS 92.225 for an undeveloped subdivision. As
such the subdivision and the legally created lots
are subject to review. This subdivision must
either be revised or vacated so as to conform to
the applicable land use actions subsequently
approved by the county. We are adamantly opposed
to any sale or development of the individual lots
shown on the plat of Wild Horse Meadows."
C. Letter from Mary Anderson, dated February 21, 1995.
Ms. Anderson indicates, "I own property bordering
the Wild Horse Meadows portion of the Aspen Lakes
project. I was told at the time I purchased the
property (August 1992) that the plat for the 31 ten
acre lots in Wild Horse Meadow had been nullified."
The Findings and Decision for CU-89-70 contains numerous
conclusionary findings and conditions of approval relevant to
this matter, as follows:
Conclusionary finding #1.A.2:
"By proposing to cluster the development of the 144
lots, substantially more open space will be
preserved."
Conclusionary finding #1.A.3:
"Effect of the development on the rural character
of the area.
AD-95-2
Page 3
Given the fact that these two subdivisions are
legally platted and are subject to development, the
proposed cluster development and the accompanying
open space should protect the rural character of
the area. One important rural characteristic the
proposal needs to keep in mind is that animal
movement corridors must be available and left free
of structures and adequate screening left or
provide cover for animals through the area."
Conclusionary finding #1.B.1:
"Human activities, including all development and
alterations of the natural landscape, will be
limited to 35% of the land and 65% of [the land]
will be kept in open space uses. The area of
the development shall be measured by drawing a
continuous line around the affected area 150 feet
on either side of any lot, building, road or other
such facility.
Conclusionary finding #1.B.5:
"All subdivision requirements contained in County
Ordinance 81-043 shall be met.
The applicant has agreed that all subdivision
requirements of County Ordinance 81-043 shall be
met."
Conclusionary finding #1.B.6:
"The open space of the proposed development may be
platted as a separate parcel or in common ownership
of some or all of the clustered units; however, the
open area shall not be subject to development
unless the whole development is brought inside an
urban growth boundary.
No part of the open space of the proposed
development will be subject to further development,
except uses permitted in open spaces within the
County, including, but not limited to, golf
courses."
Conclusionary finding #1B.7:
"The rural character of the area should not be
adversely affected due to the clustering of the
development within a legally platted subdivision
around an approved golf course."
AD-95-2
Page 4
Condition 14:
"All conditions
letter from the
Wildlife shall be
identified in the June 15, 1989
Oregon Department of Fish and
met."
Condition #8:
"The applicant shall comply with all requirements
of ordinance 81-043, the Deschutes County
Subdivision Ordinance."
County Determination
The applicant submitted a title report and individual tax lot
statements in support of their contention that thirty-one
(31) 10-acre lots in the Wild Horse Meadows subdivision
remain as legal lots of record. Although development on
these lots would not be consistent with the intent of the
cluster subdivision originally proposed by the applicant, the
remaining 31 lots of Wild Horse Meadows have not been vacated
or replatted and are legal lots of record. With
consideration of the discussion below, the 31 lots in Wild
Horse Meadows are valid subsisting platted lots.
All of the property located in the Aspen Lakes Development is
controlled, for land use purposes, by the conditional use
permit issued for the overall project, CU-89-70. The county
probably should have required that the lots in question be
vacated as an earlier condition of approval, for example when
the lots at the The Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision were
platted. Although it may have appeared that the applicant
intended to proceed on their own to vacate these lots, up to
now there has been now specific requirement to do so.
Development on these lots could be problematic. For example,
these lots are not clustered around the golf course and the
lots do not meet the two-acre maximum size requirement as set
forth in the cluster definition. Development on these
remaining lots would not be consistent with the requirement
to maintain open space identified by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife for wildlife movement or the requirement to
maintain 65% of the subject property in open space to meet
the definition of a cluster subdivision.
If there was a sale of any of the 31 lots in the remainder of
Wild Horse Meadows a cluster subdivision for unplatted
property under CU-89-70 could not be approved. Instead,
there would be a mixture of smaller platted cluster lots and
larger non-clustered lots consisting of the 31 lots in Wild
Horse Meadows. The intent of the original proposal and the
requirements of the cluster subdivision approval would no
longer be able to be realized.
AD-95-2
Page 5
If the entire subdivision were vacant, under the sole
ownership of the applicant and development of clustered lots
formerly platted in the Wild Horse Meadows and the Wild Horse
Plains subdivisions had not started, the applicant could
elect not to begin development approved pursuant to CU-89-70.
However, the platting of 62 clustered lots out of the 144
approved has occurred, the majority of lots in The Rim at
Aspen Lakes subdivision and some of the lots in the Golf
Course Estates at Aspen Lakes Phase I subdivision have been
sold to other parties and three of the lots at The Rim have
houses built on them.
If the applicant elects to proceed with the platting of
additional phases of lots in the cluster subdivision around
the golf course then, as a condition of approval for the next
plat, the county will likely require the applicant to vacate
the remaining lots in the Wild Horse meadows subdivision to
preserve open space and meet other requirements of a
clustered subdivision. Alternatively, if the applicant
decides to sell or develop any of the 31 remaining lots in
Wild Horse Meadows, this would appear to constitute an
abandonment of conditional use permit CU-89-70 and no further
platting of lots in the area formerly known as Wild Horse
Plains would be permitted. Neither course of action would
affect the platted lots in either The Rim at Aspen Lakes or
Golf Course Estates Phase I subdivisions.
Lots in the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes Phase I
Subdivision
The final plat for the initial 43 lots in the Golf Course
Estates at Aspen Lakes Phase I subdivision was recorded in
March of 1991. This plat is a replat of the Wild Horse
Plains subdivision and includes two tracts for open space,
golf course development and the remaining 82 authorized lots
approved in CU-89-70.
The Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes Phase I subdivision of
the Aspen Lakes development project was approved by the
county in a tentative plat decision, File No. TP-90-727. Two
addenda to this decision were subsequently issued by the
county on August 10 and September 10, 1990. Phase I was also
required to be consistent with the conditional use permit for
the master plan, CU-89-70.
The following comments were received regarding this issue:
A. Letter from David Lee:
"Phase I of the Golf Course Estates is an approved plat
created in accordance with the ordinance of the county.
The subdivision is being developed and the lots are both
sellable and buildable. The subdivision is active in
that three lots have been sold, the roads are built with
AD-95-2
Page 6
base aggregate in place, a water well has been drilled
and tested, and the lots have been approved for
individual septic disposal systems.
Phase I of the Golf Course Estates like the Rim at Aspen
Lakes is a phase of the Aspen lakes Development.
Likewise, the subdivision is a replat of several of the
lots of Wild Horse Plains. It was a specific finding of
the Land Use Action CU-89-70 that the plat of Wild Horse
Plains would be vacated. Wild Horse Plains is also an
undeveloped subdivision and subject to review.
The plat for the Phase I development was submitted
within the time frame for TP-90-727 and SP-90-45. No
time frame was outlined for Phase II and III."
B. Letter dated February 17, 1995 from the Rural
Preservation Committee:
Note especially TP-90-727 and SP-90-45, item
10 on P. 9. A large area W. of Camp Polk road is
designated open space (No construction). Golf
course is not listed as part of open space. Note
also item 3 on road allignment (sic), and item 7.
And item 15 mandates improvements first."
C. Comment from Squaw Creek Irrigation District:
"We have the hold harmless (agreement] - We stand
firm on what's on the record now."
County Determination
The 43 lots in the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes Phase I
subdivision are configured in a cluster arrangement around
the site of the golf course and improvements are bonded.
These lots are legally platted and conform in size and
location to the master plan approval, CU-89-70, for a cluster
subdivision.
The county contemplates that three additional phases will be
submitted by the applicant to complete the plat process for
the 82 authorized lots. The findings and decision for
TP-90-727 refers to multiple phases of development and
required that the final plat be recorded within one year from
the date of the decision. This decision was issued on August
7, 1990.
The second addendum to the decision clarifies that the final
plat for Phase I was required to be recorded within one year
but was silent with respect to a timeframe for subsequent
phases. However, CU-89-70 requires that the project comply
with all requirements of the county subdivision ordinance,
known at the time as Ordinance 81-043. Section 4.010 of
Article IV in ordinance 81-043 specifies that:
AD-95-2
Page 7
112. The final plats for any subsequent phase shall be
filed within three (3) years of the approved date
for the tentative plan."
3. The applicant may request an extension for any
final plat under this section in the manner
provided for in Section 4.005(2).
4. If the applicant fails to file a final plat, the
tentative plan for those phases shall become null
and void."
TP-90-727 became 'final' ten days after it was mailed in
August, 1990. However the second Addendum was mailed on
September 10, 1990, so the final date for this decision can
be interpreted to be September 20, 1990. Therefore, the
deadline for completing the platting process for the Golf
Course Estates portion of the project was September 20, 1993.
No extension request for an additional period of time was
ever filed by the applicant.
Therefore, the approval of TP-90-727 has expired. This does
not affect the 43 lots already legally platted in Phase I
nor, by itself, does it constitute an abandonment of
CU-89-70. However, a new tentative plat application must be
filed by the applicant and approved by the county before
submitting any final plats for the 82 authorized lots.
Lots in The Rim at. Aspen Lakes Subdivision
The Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision lots (19) were legally
platted in March of 1990. This plat was a partial replat of
the Wild Horse Meadows subdivision, discussed above, and
included three open space tracts west of Camp Polk Road.
Seventeen lots have been sold to private parties; the
applicant has retained ownership of two lots. Three lots
have houses built on them.
The Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision was approved pursuant to
the master plan, CU-89-70, and the tentative plat for this
portion of the development project, TP-89-712.
The following comments were submitted regarding this area:
A. Letter from The Rim at Aspen Lakes Association, Inc.:
"1. The road Hawksflight Drive was transferred from KMB
to the Rim Association.
2. The ground alongside Hawksflight Drive, designated
Tract C on the development plans, has been
transferred from KMB to the Rim Association.
AD-95-2
Page 8
3. The water storage tank and ancillary equipment,
built on the land designated Tract A on the
development plans, has been transferred from KMB to
the Rim Association.
4. It is our understanding that the flood plain and
west side of the development, Tract B, has binding
limits on future land use and will eventually have
a Management Plan. It is also our understanding
that the land on the east side of Camp Polk Road is
currently designated as open Space on the Master
Plan for the Aspen Lakes development."
B. Letter from David Lee:
"It is our position that the Rim of Aspen Lakes is
a completed subdivision. The county should be
reminded, however, that the management plan for
Tract A and Tract B open spaces has never been
submitted or approved. The plan was to have been
submitted within 60 days of the decision on
TP-89-712 which occurred on January 5, 1990. The
developer has defiantly ignored the requirements of
the county ordinance and has defaulted on his
fiduciary responsibilities to the lot owners to
properly manage and safeguard the open space
tracts."
County Determination
The 19 lots in The Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision are legally
platted and conform in size and location to the master plan
approval, CU-89-70, for a cluster subdivision.
There is a requirement, condition of approval #6, for a
written management plan for the area designated as open space
on the plat. The intent of this requirement is for a plan
that will ensure protection of identified resource values in
Tract B below the rim and alongside Squaw Creek, and in Tract
A east of Hawksflight Drive. The applicant has never
completed the management plan.
Deed restrictions on Tracts A and B, acceptable to the
applicant and the county, are in effect. At one point in
time, before the deed restrictions were prepared, the county
temporarily stopped issuing building permits for lots at The
Rim at Aspen Lakes. The applicant agreed at the time these
deed restrictions were recorded in 1992 that they would not
be able to apply for any additional land use approvals on any
portion of the cluster development covered by CU-89-70 until
the management plan is completed and accepted by the county.
At the same time the county agreed to accept and process
building permits for the 19 lots in The Rim at Aspen Lakes.
That agreement between the applicant and the county is still
in effect.
AD-95-2
Page 9
Land use permit for the Aspen Lakes Golf Course
An 18-hole golf course was approved by Deschutes County in a
conditional use permit issued in July of 1988, CU-88-77. The
applicant received approval for an additional 9 holes in
February of 1990, CU-89-153. The site plan for the golf
course, SP-90-45, was approved in August of 1990, within the
one year time limit required by CU-89-153 (This decision was
issued jointly with TP-90-727).
The county received the following comments regarding this
issue:
A. Letter from David Lee:
"The approval for the golf course was received via
CU-88-77 and CU-89-153. The golf course has been
cleared and rough graded. Significant progress has
ben made towards its completion. A well has been
drilled for irrigation purposes and applications
for permits to appropriate ground water have been
submitted to the Water Resources Department.
The golf course is an integral part of the approved
Master Plan and its completion will play a large
part in the success of the Aspen Lakes
Development."
B. Memo dated February 16, 1995, from Kyle Gorman, Water
Resources Department:
"The subject parcels are covered with multiple
permitted groundwater rights. Our records show
that the deadline to show final proof of the
application of beneficial use of water under these
permits is October 1, 1995. If this cannot be
completed, an extension of time needs to be filed
with the Water Resources Department. If the
applicant has already filed and our records don't
reflect this action, disregard the notice."
County Determination
The applicant has indicated that physical work on the golf
course began immediately after site plan permit approval and
is continuing to the present "although work has slowed
significantly since the winter of 1991." The applicant has
submitted evidence indicating that fairway clearing, burning
and rough grading occurred in 1990, 1991 and part of 1992.
This evidence includes photographs, a description by W.L.
Overdorf & Associates of the work completed on the golf
course and the affidavit from Matt Cyrus. Attachment A to
the affidavit indicates that $424,506 have been spent on
AD-95-2
Page 10
developing the golf course. Based on this evidence the
conditional use permit and site plan permit have been
exercised and remain valid at this time.
The applicant states that, "It is the position of KMB
Enterprises that all of the conditions of approval of the
site plan were met within a year of receipt of said approval
and that the site plan was fully exercised in accordance with
such approvals." This statement is partially incorrect.
The land use approvals for the golf course require that
certain off-site improvements be made before the course can
be operated. For example, condition #3 requires realignment
of the Camp Polk Road - Highway 126 intersection "prior to
the operation of any portion of the golf course." The
realignment has not occurred, therefore not all conditions of
the site plan have been met.
The county did not set a time frame for completion of the
golf course in the land use approvals which pertain to the
course. The land use permits for the golf course, CU-88-77,
CU-89-153 and SP-90-45, would be valid until the golf course
is abandoned.
Nothing in this decision is intended to decide any issue not
presented by the applicant, nor is this decision to be
construed as a waiver of any obligation of the applicant
arising from a land use permit.
AD-95-2
Page 11
This decision becomes final ten (10) days after the date
mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest- This
administrative determination is a "development action" which
constitutes an appealable decision by the county. To be
valid, any appeal must be filed in accordance with the
procedures described in chapter 22.32 in Title 22 of the
county code.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: David B. Le lie, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: evin M. Harrison, Principal Planner
DBL:slr
Enclosures
cc: Jim Massey
Rick Isham
Derek Cornforth
David Lee
Mary Anderson
Tygh Redfield
William Boyer
R.B. Brockway
Glen Bradley
Charles Bradley
Lee Curtis
Jim Mason
Kathleen Meehan
Watermaster, District 11
Squaw Creek Irrigation District
AD-95-2
Page 12
Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg
Bend, Oregon 97701
(541) 317-1993
fax (541) 383-3470
pdewey@bendcable.com
June 4, 2008
Ms. Laura Lehman, Associate Planner
City of Sisters
Sisters, Oregon 97759
Re: Impacts of Potential Conversion of Aspen Lakes into a Destination Resort;
Text Amendment TA-07-7
Dear Ms. Lehman:
I understand that you are putting together information for the Sisters City Council on the
proposed text amendment to allow certain cluster developments (namely Golf Course Estates, or
Aspen Lakes) to convert to a destination resort. I am representing the Homeowners Association
for the Rim at Aspen Lakes in opposing this text amendment and would like to present you with
the enclosed information on what we see to be impacts on the City of Sisters of such a
conversion to a destination resort.
Though what has been applied for here is technically only a text amendment, the intent by the
Applicant to develop a destination resort is clear. The scope of the planned resort is not stated in
the text amendment application, but the Applicant has described at least its initial intentions in an
application to the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), attached.
Also, some people have seen a map apparently prepared by Aspen Lakes showing a planned
destination resort expansion to the south on other lands owned by the family on which there is
the destination resort overlay zone. See the enclosed map showing the destination resort zone
and relevant ownership.
If you have any questions on any of the enclosed materials, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PAUL DEWEY
PD:ao
Enclosures
cc: Client
Adverse Impacts on the City of Sisters
of the Possible Conversion of Golf Course Estates
(Aspen Lakes) into a Destination Resort
1. The conversion of the existing rural clustered subdivision (Golf Course Estates,
essentially completed) to a destination resort would take land that had been set aside as
permanent Open Space in 1989 (65% open space for the clustered subdivision) and replace it
with a dense housing subdivision on the outskirts of Sisters. The current Aspen Lakes
development is located in Section 1 on the attached map and the Open Space that is apparently
intended to be developed as part of a destination resort is in Section 35.
2. Although the exact number of houses in the potential destination resort has not been
released, an application for a water permit made by the developer to the Oregon Water Resources
Department (OWRD) states that there could be an additional 300 homesites, another 100 units of
detached overnight housing, and a 150-room motel with restaurant. It is also understood that a
recreation center is planned at this site. (See the attached 111105 letter to OWRD.) If completed,
these facilities could add about 1,300 people during "normal" use and about 2,000 people during
"peak" summer use. (See attached Potential Usage calculations.) This is a very significant
increase of people impacting Sisters. To put the proposed destination resort in perspective, the
additional homes and hotel rooms would multiply the existing 115 homesites on the Golf Course
Estates by almost five times.
3. The large population increase would significantly worsen Sister's already-strained traffic
system. It would be especially worsened at the Locust Street/Cascade intersection and the Hwy
126/Hwy 20 fork on the east side of town. With such a large increase in local population, the
north-south crossing of Cascade would become even more difficult in the summer months.
You should contact Chris Doty, Director of Public Works of the City of Redmond (504-2001),
for his explanation of impacts of a destination resort on a nearby city. See his attached
September 26, 2007, letter to the Redmond City Council. Ultimately, the burden falls on the
City and its residents to have to pay for infrastructure improvement needs caused or hastened by
the destination resort traffic.
The way it apparently works is that a city must include the full buildout of nearby resorts in its
traffic models for its Transportation System Plan. Then the transportation System Development
Charges, or SDCs, (assessed for development in the City) need to be able to pay for all of the
upsizing of transportation improvements that will need to occur in the UGB due to the impacts of
the destination resorts as well as other increases in background traffic on the State Highway
system. Redmond expects to have the second or third highest transportation SDCs in the state in
part due to costs associated with mitigating destination resort impacts. Of course, these
destination resorts do not pay any SDCs to the cities.
4. Sisters has recently been listed as a "Distressed Area" due to the lack of affordable
housing for workers employed in the area. This proposed upscale housing complex will only add
to this problem since the development will use additional low-wage help to provide the housing,
motel, and restaurant services without providing any additional affordable housing.
5. The proposed development would probably overwhelm Camp Polk Road, which has
steep grades and dangerous curves in the vicinity. This road was never intended to carry these
levels of traffic.
6. The proposed development adjoins the flood plain of Why-Chus Creek, this stretch of the
flood plain being owned by the Cyrus family. This area at the very least is likely to experience
increased access to the stream by new residents and recreational visitors that could negatively
impact the efforts being made to reintroduce fish. There is also a possible but unknown effect of
large aquifer withdrawal on the cold water springs that feed into Why-Chus Creek here. As a
supporter of this effort to restore fish habitat, the City should be concerned about situating this
large population increase so close to the Creek.
7. If allowed to be converted to a destination resort, Aspen Lakes could potentially be
further expanded onto other lands in the Cyrus family (outside of Sections 1 and 35) that are in
the destination resort overlay zone. See the attached 11 x 17 map. That would mean even more
development and impacts.
2
SJXV7 N69dsv
90 NVIcT aALLYINML (laSYh
r~ g
o C
n
o
-a
`
z
1 c1 u
o r
1
N
%J
t
r Q
0 Z
N
N
W
_J
2
N
O
c
z
W
CD
O
r
a
H
ti
U
5
'i
Potential Usage
Normal
236 homes
100 timeshares
100-room hotel
100 person restaurant
Recreation center
@ 3.25 / home
1,092
@ 2 / room
@ 50% capacity + 10 staff
Peak (summer)
336 @ 4.5 / home
100 (hotel) @ 3 / room
100-person restaurant @ 90% capacity + 15 staff
Recreation center
200
60
15
1,367
1,512
300
105
33
1,950
Aspen Lakes Utility Company, LLC
16900 Aspen Lakes Drive
Sisters, OR 97759
(541) 548-0835
January 1, 2005
Lisa J. Juul, Water Rights Specialist
Water Resources Department
North Mall Office Building
725 Summer St. NE, Suite A
Salem, OR 97301-1271
Re: Water Right Application #G-12042 (Permit #G-11146)
Dear Ms. Juul,
Provided herein is the additional information that you requested for processing our extension of
time for the above permit.
Question #3 - OAR 690-315-0070(3) (d): Describe and supply documentation of actions taken to
develop the water right hermit:
Prior to October 1, 1994, the water system, consisting of a well, pump station, reservoir, and
distribution system was constructed. In addition, three services were connected. During the
period of October 1, 1994 to October 1, 1999, five more residential services were connected.
During the period of October 1, 1999 to October 1, 2004, another six residential services were
connected.
Question #10 - OAR 690-315-0070(3)(k):
A. Provide an estimated demand projection and description fo the methodology(ies) used for the
subject water right permit, considering the other water rights and contracts held by the
municipal or quasi-municipal water use permit holder, and a date by which the water
development is anticipated to be completed and water put to full beneficial use.
The permit covers approximately 520 acres of a 1,080 acre parcel of land zoned for residential
development. In addition, there is a Destination Resort overlay Zone on the property. Given this
overlay zone, the property can potentially be developed as a Destination Resort with a much
higher density and more homes than the base RR-10 zone will allow. The current RR-10 zone
will allow a maximum of 144 homesites (when combined with the adjacent 560 acres in Section
1), while a Destination Resort might allow as many as 400 or more homes. All of this property is
within the service area of the utility company and the permit anticipates this increase in demand.
RECEIVED
'I L
JAN 0 11 "
wqr
ER
SALEM RESOURCES DEPT
The owner/developer of this property is currently working on an application that can be presented
within the next six months that would convert the entire 1,080 acres into a Destination Resort. It
is anticipated that this approval could take another year and construction could begin in 2007. A
Destination Resort would likely include an additional 300 homesites, a 150 room motel facility
with restaurant, and another 100 units of detached overnight lodging such as condominiums.
Until this application is completed, the demand is a rough estimate at best. The engineers have
estimated residential use at approximately 1.5 gallons per minute per home. This permit would
allow for up to 53 total units (or less when commercial uses are added). These restrictions will
need to be considered when the resort is designed.
If needed, additional residential water can be obtained from Permit #G-11576. It covers the
entire 1,080 acre parcel which includes the property listed on this permit and currently services
only 115 homesites with its 800 gpm capacity. Additionally, irrigation permits #G-11577 and
#G-11578 could potentially serve to irrigate landscape areas outside the homes if necessary there
is insufficient water available from this permit.
Question #11- OAR 690-31S-0070(3)(7): Please provide a summary of the plan and schedule to
complete construction and/or perfect the water rights.
The civil engineer has completed a very preliminary study of the possible demand, along with a
projection of needed improvements for a resort expansion. The development of a Destination
Resort will likely require the construction of an additional pump station and 750,000 gallon
reservoir. This would include approximately 8,000 feet of new 12 inch supply line from the
wells and potentially another 15,000 feet of distribution line. This construction would likely
occur over the next five years, with full utilization of this permit within the next 20 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to supply additional information to the extension application.
Please contact me if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Matt Cyrus, ember
Aspen Lakes Utility Company, LLC
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 2005
WATER RESOURCES DEPT
SALEM, OREGON
SG D 104,
d~b
875 SE VETERANS WAY
REDMOND, OR 97756-0100
CITY OF REDMOND
Public Works Department
541.923.7713
FAX: 541.548.0706
www.ci.redmond.or.us
September 26, 2007
Alan Unger, Mayor
George Endicott, Councilor
Redmond City Council
726 SW Evergreen Avenue
Redmond, OR 97756
RE: Recent amendments to the Transportation Planning Rule and the impact on
municipalities
Dear Mayor Unger and Councilman Endicott,
In carrying out the responsible stewardship of the State's land use laws and resources, the
DLCD requires municipalities to plan for 20 years of growth. Municipalities have embraced
this mandate through development of Comprehensive Plans which incorporate Public
Facility Plan components which require 20-year Transportation System Plans in addition to
Water, Wastewater and Park System Master Plans. From their Master Plans, municipalities
are able to identify specific projects, funding sources, and construction timeframes within a
20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In addition to local system projects, the
Transportation CIP also identifies improvements and projects on the State Highway system
within the 20-year planning period.
Unfortunately ODOT does not have a long-term funding vision or mechanism for State
Highway projects and instead utilizes only a four-year State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). While State Highway projects may be identified on the City's 20-year CIP,
the funding of those projects is not certain until they appear within the 4-year ODOT STIP.
Recently in 2005, the DLCD amended OAR 660-12 to mandate that all projects
necessitated by zone change applications (as identified in a 20-year analysis) not only be
planned, but funded. The recent amendments further define "funded" for State Highway
projects as placement of the required project on the four-year STIP. The State Highway
project can also be deemed funded via issuance of a letter from the ODOT Region Manager
which states that the Project is "reasonably likely" to be funded within the planning period;
to date, an ODOT Region Manager has yet to issue a letter stating such anywhere in the
entire State.
The implication of this recent amendment is beyond significant: A project that may not be
needed for 15 or 20 years will prevent urban growth boundary expansion unless it is
identified on the STIP - which only plans projects four years in advance.
With the 20-year Capital Improvement Plan, municipal projects are planned and funding
sources are identified (System Development Charges, etc.), however ODOT does not plan
or fund projects in a similar manner. The recent DLCD OAR 660-12 amendments do not
align with ODOT project planning practice.
As a result of this issue, municipalities will be significantly limited in their expansion due to
the lack of a long term planning and funding mechanism for ODOT projects, or in a more
likely scenario (and perhaps as intended), municipalities will need to summon local funding
to improve State Highways through their communities. Where it may be fair to ask
municipalities to mitigate their growth's impact to the State Highway system within their
community, it is completely unreasonable to force municipalities to fund entire State
Highway projects - which is what OAR 660-12 effectively accomplishes by excusing ODOT
from providing long term transportation funding solutions.
Nowhere is this more damaging than in the City of Redmond where a plethora of nearby
Destination Resort developments have been approved within the past several years which
rely on access via the State Highway system. In order to expand our Urban Growth
Boundary and provide state mandated lands for development, the City is in a position in
which it must fund all necessary State Highway expansion projects to satisfy the OAR 660-
12.
Within Central Oregon, the OAR 660-12 revisions have flipped the intentions of Oregon
Land Use law. Rural developments (Destination Resorts, M37 subdivisions) are rewarded
and urban expansion is punished as it relates to providing funding for transportation
solutions.
The long term transportation funding issue needs to be solved at the State level. In the
meantime, the manipulation of OAR 660-12 to remove the burden from ODOT has placed
growing municipalities in a hostage situation. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-
12) cries out for a legislative fix.
Sincerely,
Chris Doty, PE, PTOE
Director of Public Works
CREi
zy Currc 0Y1
StO~cE
GotF Co~rsF
CAMP P04~R
'~,,0 dowlao.«.m~
r
N `
r ~
1
II '
0ic-. spa.. F~ r C
Asp- L( k.~ ` i
I 4 ~ is
2; - >-t
Azo- Lo4a1
da~ra~ a(~.bvM.t
G~
S t5TE25
Aspen Lakes Area
Destination Resort Combining Zone
® Destination Resort Combining Zone
Cyrus Family Ownership
~J~`-"
k•~ I
5 , ~ovCAR~NV t
s y M..f,.W
Ir 1 r
L w 5/ SF 7
3
N
T EMAY LN-.JI
NVLDH(
MEAD-
ti
CurreAM Aipc, L~Utj
(GoIF Cn~rrx Csfctes)
ct(V 6Lp1'J MC 1't'
2EDAnN I D
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Mlles
~ w... ...w......
J" 02.2008 W
REVISED PROPOSED TEXT FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE:
18.113.025. Application to existing resorts and cluster subdivisions
Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts or proposals to
convert subdivisions or portions thereof platted as a cluster development ap rp oved prior to
February 7, 1992 and which include at a minimum an 18-hole golf course and dining facilities
hereinafter "cluster subdivision" shall meet the following criteria:
A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or
B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved
destination resort development or cluster subdivision and the proposed expansion area), except
that as to the area covered by the existing destination r-esei4 developments, compliance with
setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required.
If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development,
applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a
manner that will be integral to the remainder of the resort. When new facilities are required to
bring existing developments into compliance with current destination resort law, those facilities
shall provided, or where allowed financially assured prior to any other development in an
expansion area.
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 1
Chapter 18.113. DESTINATION RESORTS ZONE - DR
18.113.010.
Purpose.
.113.020.
A plicability.
13.025.
Applica ion o Existing Resorts.
18.113.030.
Uses in Destma ion Resorts.
18.113.040.
Application Submission.
18.113.050.
Requirements for Conditional Use Permit and Conceptual Master Plan
Applications.
18.113.060. Standards for Destination Resorts.
18.113.070. Approval Criteria.
18.113.075. Imposition of Conditions.
18.113.080. Procedure for Modification of a Conceptual Master Plan.
18.113.090. Requirements for Final Master Plan.
18.113.100. Procedure for Approval of Final Master Plan.
18.113.110. Provision of Streets, Utilities, Developed Recreational Facilities and
Visitor-Oriented Accommodations.
18.113.010. Purpose.
A. The purpose of the DR Zone is to establish a mechanism for siting destination resorts to ensure
compliance with LCDC Goal 8 and the County Comprehensive Plan. The destination resort designation
is intended to identify land areas which are available for the siting of destination resorts, but which will
only be developed if consistent with the purpose and intent of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
B. The DR Zone is an overlay zone. The DR Zone is intended to provide for properly designed and sited
destination resort facilities which enhance and diversify the recreational opportunities and the economy
of Deschutes County. The DR Zone will ensure resort development that compliments the natural and
cultural attractiveness of the area without significant adverse effect on commercial farming and forestry,
environmental and natural features, cultural and historic resources and their settings and other
significant resources.
C. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to establish procedures and standards for developing destination resorts
while ensuring that all applicable County Comprehensive Plan policies are achieved.
D. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to ensure that all elements of a destination resort which are proposed are
financially secured in a manner which will protect the public's interest should the development not be
completed as proposed.
E. It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site developments that are in effect rural subdivisions, whose
primary purpose is to serve full-time residents of the area.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
/ 18.113.020. Applicability.
A. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall apply to proposals for the development of destination resorts, as
defined in DCC Title 18, in areas designated DR by the County zoning maps. The provisions of DCC
18.113 shall not apply to any development proposal in an area designated DR other than a destination
resort.
B. When these provisions are applicable, they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone.
Other provisions of the zoning ordinance, made applicable by specific map designations, such as the
SMIA, AH, CH, FP or LM, or otherwise applicable under the terms of the zoning ordinance text shall
remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specified herein.
Chapter 18.113 1 (02/2008)
C. The provisions of DCC 18.113 apply to destination resorts sited through the Goal 2 exception process.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.025. Application to Existing Resorts.
Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts shall meet the following
criteria:
A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or
B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination
resort development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing
destination resort, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required.
If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be
integral to the remainder of the resort.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.030. Uses in Destination Resorts.
The following uses are allowed, provided they are part of, and are intended to serve persons at, the
destination resort pursuant to DCC 18.113.030 and are approved in a final master plan:
A. Visitor-oriented accommodations designed to provide for the needs of visitors to the resort:
1. Overnight lodging, including lodges, hotels, motels, bed and breakfast facilities, time-share units
and similar transient lodging facilities;
2. Convention and conference facilities and meeting rooms;
3. Retreat centers;
4. Restaurants, lounges and similar eating and drinking establishments; and
5. Other similar visitor-oriented accommodations consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and
Goal 8.
B. Developed recreational facilities designed to provide for the needs of visitors and residents of the resort;
1. Golf courses and clubhouses;
2. Indoor and outdoor swimming pools;
3. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts;
4. Physical fitness facilities;
5. Equestrian facilities;
6. Wildlife observation shelters;
7. Walkways, bike paths, jogging paths, equestrian trails;
8. Other similar recreational facilities consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
C. Residential accommodations:
1. Single-family dwellings;
2. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and multi-family dwellings;
3. Condominiums;
4. Townhouses;
5. Living quarters for employees;
6. Time-share projects.
D. Commercial services and specialty shops designed to provide for the visitors to the resort:
1. Specialty shops, including but not limited to delis, clothing stores, bookstores, gift shops and
specialty food shops;
2. Barber shops/beauty salons;
3. Automobile service stations limited to fuel sales, incidental parts sales and minor repairs;
4. Craft and art studios and galleries;
5. Real estate offices;
6. Convenience stores;
Chapter 18.113 2 (02/2008)
7. Other similar commercial services which provide for the needs of resort visitors and are consistent
with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
E. Uses permitted in open space areas generally include only those uses that, except as specified herein, do
not alter the existing or natural landscape of the proposed open space areas. No improvements,
development or other alteration of the natural or existing landscape shall be allowed in open space
areas, except as necessary for development of golf course fairways and greens, hiking and bike trails,
lakes and ponds and primitive picnic facilities including park benches and picnic tables. Where farming
activities would be consistent with identified preexisting open space uses, irrigation equipment and
associated pumping facilities shall be allowed.
F. Facilities necessary for public safety and utility service within the destination resort.
G. Other similar uses permitted in the underlying zone consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113.030.
H. Accessory Uses in Destination Resorts:
1. The following accessory uses shall be permitted provided they are ancillary. to the destination resort
and consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8:
a. Transportation-related facilities excluding airports;
b. Emergency medical facilities;
c. Storage structures and areas;
d. Kennels as a service for resort visitors only;
e. Recycling and garbage collection facilities;
£ Other similar accessory uses consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
(Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
18.113.040. Application Submission.
The authorization of a permit for a destination resort shall consist of three steps.
A. Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Destination Resort. A conceptual master plan
(CMP) shall be submitted which addresses all requirements established in DCC 18.113.040. The CMP
application shall be processed as if it were a conditional use permit under DCC Title 22, shall be subject
to DCC 18.128.010, 18.128.020 and 18.128.030 and shall be reviewed for compliance with the
standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.113.
B. Final Master Plan. The applicant shall prepare a final master plan (IMP) which incorporates all
requirements of the County approval for the CMP. The Planning Director shall review the FMP to
determine if it complies with the approved CMP and all conditions of approval of the conditional use
permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve, deny or return the FMP to the
applicant for additional information. When interpretations of the Planning Director involve issues
which are discretionary, the IMP approval shall be treated as a land use permit in accordance with DCC
Title 22.
C. Site Plan Review. Each element or development phase of the destination resort must receive additional
approval through the required site plan review (DCC 18.124) or subdivision process (DCC Title 17). In
addition to findings satisfying the site plan or subdivision criteria, findings shall be made that the
specific development proposal complies with the standards and criteria of DCC 18.113 and the FMP.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.050. Requirements for Conditional Use Permit and Conceptual Master Plan
Applications.
The CMP provides the framework for development of the destination resort and is intended to ensure that
the destination resort meets the requirements of DCC 18.113. The CMP application shall include the
following information:
A. Illustrations and graphics to scale, identifying:
1. The location and total number of acres to be developed as a planned destination resort;
2. The subject area and all land uses adjacent to the subject area;
Chapter 18.11.3 3 (02/2008)
3. The topographic character of the site;
4. Types and general location of proposed development uses, including residential and commercial
uses;
5. Major geographic features;
6. Proposed methods of access to the development, identifying the main vehicular circulation system
within the resort and an indication of whether streets will be public or private;
7. Major pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trail systems;
8. Important natural features of the site, including habitat of threatened or endangered species,
streams, rivers, wetlands and riparian vegetation within 200 feet of streams, rivers and wetlands.
9. All uses proposed within landscape management corridors identified by the comprehensive plan or
zoning ordinance.
10. The location and number of acres reserved
designated as "open space," "buffer area,"
labeled as such;
11. All proposed recreational amenities;
12. Proposed overall density.
B. Further information as follows:
as open space, buffer area, or common area. Areas
)r "common area" should be clearly illustrated and
1. A description of the natural characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including a description
of resources and the effect of the destination resort on the resources; methods employed to mitigate
adverse impacts on resources; analysis of how the overall values of the natural features of the site
will be preserved, enhanced or utilized in the design concept for the destination resort; and a
proposed resource protection plan to ensure that important natural features will be protected and
maintained. Factors to be addressed include:
a. Compatibility of soil composition for proposed development(s) and potential erosion hazard;
b. Geology, including areas of potential instability;
c. Slope and general topography;
d. Areas subject to flooding;
e. Other hazards or development constraints;
f. Vegetation;
g. Water areas, including streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands;
h. Important natural features;
i. Landscape management corridors;
j. Wildlife.
2. A traffic study which addresses (1) impacts on affected County, city and state road systems and (2)
transportation improvements necessary to mitigate any such impacts. The study shall be submitted
to the affected road authority (either the County Department of Public Works or the Oregon
Department of Transportation, or both) at the same time as the conceptual master plan and shall be
prepared by a licensed traffic engineer to the minimum standards of the road authorities.
3. A description of how the proposed destination resort will satisfy the standards and criteria of DCC
18.113.060 and 18.113.070;
4. Design guidelines and development standards defining visual and aesthetic parameters for:
a. Building character;
b. Landscape character;
c. Preservation of existing topography and vegetation;
d. Siting of buildings; and
e. Proposed standards for minimum lot area, width, frontage, lot coverage, setbacks and building
heights.
5. An open space management plan which includes:
a. An explanation of how the open space management plan meets the minimum standards of DCC
18.113 for each phase of the development;
Chapter 18.113 4 (02/2008)
b. An inventory of the important natural features identified in the open space areas and any other
open space and natural values present in the open space;
c. A set of management prescriptions that will operate to maintain and conserve in perpetuity any
identified important natural features and other natural or open space values present in the open
space;
d. Deed restrictions that will assure that the open space areas are maintained as open space in
perpetuity.
6. An explanation of public use of facilities and amenities on the site.
7. A description of the proposed method of providing all utility systems, including the location and
sizing of the utility systems;
8. A description of the proposed order and schedule for phasing, if any, of all development including
an explanation of when facilities will be provided and how they will be secured if not completed
prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units;
9. An explanation of how the destination resort has been sited or designed to avoid or minimize
adverse effects or conflicts on adjacent lands. The application shall identify the surrounding uses
and potential conflicts between the destination resort and adjacent uses within 660 feet of the
boundaries of the parcel or parcels upon which the resort is to be developed. The application shall
explain how any proposed buffer area will avoid or minimize adverse effects or conflicts;
10. A description of the proposed method for providing emergency medical facilities and services and
public safety facilities and services including fire and police protection;
11. A study prepared by a hydrologist, engineering geologist or similar professional certified in the
State of Oregon describing:
a. An estimate of water demands for the destination resort at maximum buildout, including a
breakdown of estimated demand by category of consumption, including but not limited to
residential, commercial, golf courses and irrigated common areas;
b. Availability of water for estimated demands at the destination resort, including (1)
identification of the proposed source; (2) identification of all available information on ground
and surface waters relevant to the determination of adequacy of water supply for the destination
resort; (3) identification of the area that may be measurably impacted by the water used by the
destination resort (water impact area) and an analysis supporting the delineation of the impact
area; and (4) a statistically valid sampling of domestic and other wells within the impact area;
c. A water conservation plan including an analysis of available measures which are commonly
used to reduce water consumption. This shall include a justification of the chosen water
conservation plan. The water conservation plan shall include a wastewater disposal plan
utilizing beneficial use of reclaimed water to the maximum extent practicable.
For the purposes of DCC 18.113.050, beneficial uses shall include, but are not limited to:
i. Irrigation of golf courses and greenways;
ii. Establishment of artificial wetlands for wildlife habitation.
12. An erosion control plan for all disturbed land, as required by ORS 468. This plan shall include
storm and melt water erosion control to be implemented during all phases of construction and
permanent facilities or practices for the continuing treatment of these waters. This plan shall also
explain how the water shall be used for beneficial use or why it cannot be used as such;
13. A description of proposed sewage disposal methods;
14. Wildfire prevention, control and evacuation plans;
15. A description of interim development including temporary structures related to sales and
development;
16. Plans for owners' associations and related transition of responsibilities and transfer of property;
17. A description of the methods of ensuring that all facilities and common areas within each phase will
be established and will be maintained in perpetuity;
18. A survey of housing availability for employees based upon income level and commuting distance;
Chapter 18.113 5 (02/2008)
19. An economic impact and feasibility analysis of the proposed development prepared by a qualified
professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall be provided which includes:
a. An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development;
b. Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands
for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of
resource lands during the life of the project.
20. A solid waste management plan;
21. A description of the mechanism to be used to ensure that the destination resort provides an adequate
supply of overnight lodging units to maintain compliance with the 150-unit minimum and 2 to 1
ratio set forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2). The mechanism shall meet the requirements of DCC
18.113.060(L);
22. If the proposed destination resort is in a SMIA combining zone, DCC 18.56 shall be addressed;
23. If the proposed destination resort is in an LM combining zone, DCC 18.84 shall be addressed;
24. A survey of historic and cultural resources inventoried on an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory;
25. Other information as may reasonably be required by the Planning Director to address the effect of
the proposed development as related to the requirements of DCC Title 18.
(Ord. 2007-005 §2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
18.113.060. Standards for Destination Resorts.
The following standards shall govern consideration of destination resorts:
A. The destination resort shall, in the first phase, provide for and include as part of the CMP the following
minimum requirements:
1. At least 150 separate rentable units for visitor-oriented overnight lodging as follows:
a. The first 50 overnight lodging units must be constructed prior to the closure of sales, rental or
lease of any residential dwellings or lots.
b. The resort may elect to phase in the remaining 100 overnight lodging units as follows:
i. At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units shall be constructed or
guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 5 years of the
closure of sale of individual lots or units, and;
ii. The remaining 50 required overnight lodging units shall be constructed or guaranteed
through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 10 years of the closure of
sale of individual lots or units.
iii. If the developer of a resort guarantees a portion of the overnight lodging units required
under subsection 18. 1 13.060(A)(1)(b) through surety bonding or other equivalent financial
assurance, the overnight lodging units must be constructed within 4 years of the date of
execution of the surety bond or other equivalent financial assurance.
iv. The 2:1 accommodation ratio required by DCC 18.113.060(D)(2) must be maintained at all
times.
c. If a resort does not chose to phase the overnight lodging units as described in
18.113.060(A)(1)(b), then the required 150 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior
to the closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots.
2. Visitor-oriented eating establishments for at least 100 persons and meeting rooms which provide
seating for at least 100 persons.
3. The aggregate cost of developing the overnight lodging facilities, developed recreational facilities,
and the eating establishments and meeting rooms shall be at least $ 7,000,000 (in 1993 dollars).
4. At least $ 2,333,333 of the $7,000,000 (in 1993 dollars) total minimum investment required by
DCC 18.113.060(A)(3) shall be spent on developed recreational facilities.
5. The facilities and accommodations required by DCC 18.113.060(A)(2) through (4) must be
constructed or financially assured pursuant to DCC 18.113.110 prior to closure of sales, rental or
lease of any residential dwellings or lots or as allowed by DCC 18.113.060(A)(1).
Chapter 18.113 6 (02/2008)
B. All destination resorts shall have a minimum of 160 contiguous acres of land. Acreage split by public
roads or rivers or streams shall count toward the acreage limit, provided that the CMP demonstrates that
the isolated acreage will be operated or managed in a manner that will be integral to the remainder of
the resort.
C. All destination resorts shall have direct access onto a state or County arterial or collector roadway, as
designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase, meet the following minimum requirements:
1. The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to
permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas. Portions of individual residential
lots and landscape area requirements for developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented
accommodations or multi-family or commercial uses established by DCC 18.124.070 shall not be
considered open space;
2. Individually-owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging in DCC
18.04.030 shall not exceed two such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging.
Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for
overnight rental use by the general public for at least 38 weeks per calendar year through one or
more central reservation and check-in service(s) operated by the destination resort or by a real estate
property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010.
E. Phasing. A destination resort authorized pursuant to DCC 18.113.060 may be developed in phases. If a
proposed resort is to be developed in phases, each phase shall be as described in the CMP. Each
individual phase shall meet the following requirements:
1. Each phase, together with previously completed phases, if any, shall be capable of operating in a
manner consistent with the intent and purpose of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
2. The first phase and each subsequent phase of the destination resort shall cumulatively meet the
minimum requirements of DCC 18.113.060 and DCC 18.113.070.
3. Each phase may include two or more distinct noncontiguous areas within the destination resort.
F. Destination resorts shall not exceed a density of one and one-half dwelling units per acre including
residential dwelling units and excluding visitor-oriented overnight lodging.
G. Dimensional Standards:
1. The minimum lot area, width, lot coverage, frontage and yard requirements and building heights
otherwise applying to structures in underlying zones and the provisions of DCC 18.116 relating to
solar access shall not apply within a destination resort. These standards shall be determined by the
Planning Director or Hearings Body at the time of the CMP. In determining these standards, the
Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that the minimum specified in the CMP are adequate
to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan relating to solar access, fire protection, vehicle
access, visual management within landscape management corridors and to protect resources
identified by LCDC Goal 5 which are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, a 100-
foot setback shall be maintained from all streams and rivers. Rimrock setbacks shall be as provided
in DCC Title 18. No lot for a single-family residence shall exceed an overall project average of
22,000 square feet in size.
2. Exterior setbacks.
a. Except as otherwise specified herein, all development (including structures, site-obscuring
fences of over three feet in height and changes to the natural topography of the land) shall be
setback from exterior property lines as follows:
i. Three hundred fifty feet for commercial development including all associated narkina
areas;
ii. Two hundred fifty feet for multi-family development and visitor-oriented accommodations
(except for single-family residences) including all associated parking areas;
iii. One hundred fifty feet for above-grade development other than that listed in DCC
18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii);
iv. One hundred feet for roads;
Chapter 18.113 7 (02/2008)
v. Fifty feet for golf courses; and
vi. Fifty feet for jogging trails and bike paths where they abut private developed lots and no
setback for where they abut public roads and public lands.
b. Notwithstanding DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iii), above-grade development other than that listed
in DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(1) and (ii) shall be set back 250 feet in circumstances where state
highways coincide with exterior property lines.
c. The setbacks of DCC 18.113.060 shall not apply to entry roadways and signs.
H. Floodplain requirements. The floodplain zone (FP) requirements of DCC 18.96 shall apply to all
developed portions of a destination resort in an FP Zone in addition to any applicable criteria of DCC
18.113. Except for floodplain areas which have been granted an exception to LCDC goals 3 and 4,
floodplain zones shall not be considered part of a destination resort when determining compliance with
the following standards;
1. One hundred sixty acre minimum site;
2. Density of development;
3. Open space requirements.
A conservation easement as described in DCC Title 18 shall be conveyed to the County for all areas
within a floodplain which are part of a destination resort.
1. The Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) requirements of DCC 18.84 shall apply to
destination resorts where applicable.
J. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland
shall be a separate conditional use subject to all pertinent requirements of DCC Title 18.
K. Time-share units not included in the overnight lodging calculations shall be subject to approval under
the conditional use criteria set forth in DCC 18.128. Time-share units identified as part of the
destination resort's overnight lodging units shall not be subject to the time-share conditional use criteria
of DCC 18.128.
L. The overnight lodging criteria shall be met, including the 150-unit minimum and the 2 to 1 ratio set
forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2).
1. Failure of the approved destination resort to comply with the requirements in DCC
18.113.060(L)(2) through (6) will result in the County declining to accept or process any further
land use actions associated with any part of the resort and the County shall not issue any permits
associated with any lots or site plans on any part of the resort until proof is provided to the County
of compliance with those conditions.
2. Each resort shall compile, and maintain, in perpetuity, a registry of all overnight lodging units.
a. The list shall identify each individually-owned unit that is counted as overnight lodging.
b. At all times, at least one entity shall be responsible for maintaining the registry and fulfilling
the reporting requirements of DCC 18.113.060(L)(2) through (6).
c. Initially, the resort management shall be responsible for compiling and maintaining the registry.
d. As a resort develops, the developer shall transfer responsibility for maintaining the registry to
the homeowner association(s). The terms and timing of this transfer shall be specified in the
Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
e. Resort management shall notify the County prior to assigning the registry to a homeowner
association.
f. Each resort shall maintain records documenting its rental program related to overnight lodging
units at a convenient location in Deschutes County, with those records accessible to the County
upon 72 hour notice from the County.
g. As used in this section, "resort management" includes, but is not limited to, the applicant and
the applicant's heirs, successors in interest, assignees other than a home owners association.
3. An annual report shall be submitted to the Planning Division by the resort management or home
owners association(s) each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the
previous year:
Chapter 18.113 8 (02/2008)
a. The minimum of 150 permanent units of overnight lodging have been constructed or that the
resort is not yet required to have constructed the 150 units;
b. The number of individually-owned residential platted lots and the number of overnight-lodging
units;
c. The ratio between the individually-owned residential platted lots and the overnight lodging
units;
d. The following information on each individually-owned residential unit counted as overnight
lodging.
i. Who the owner or owners have been over the last year;
ii. How many nights out of the year the unit was available for rent;
iii. How many nights out of the year the unit was rented out as an overnight lodging facility
under DCC 18.113;
iv. Documentation showing that these units were available for rental as required.
e. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
4. To facilitate rental to the general public of the overnight lodging units, each resort shall set up and
maintain in perpetuity a telephone reservation system..
5. Any outside property managers renting required overnight lodging units shall be required to
cooperate with the provisions of this code and to annually provide rental information on any
required overnight lodging units they represent to the central office as described in DCC
18.113.060(L)(2) and (3).
6. Before approval of each final plat, all the following shall be provided:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the 2 to 1 ratio as defined in DCC
18.113.060(D)(2);
b. Documentation on all individually-owned residential units counted as overnight lodging,
including all of the following:
i. Designation on the plat of any individually-owned units that are going to be counted as
overnight lodging;
ii. Deed restrictions requiring the individually-owned residential units designated as overnight
lodging units to be available for rental at least 38 weeks each year through a central
reservation and check-in service operated by the resort or by a real estate property manager,
as defined in ORS 696.010;
iii. An irrevocable provision in the resort Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs)
requiring the individually-owned residential units designated as overnight lodging units to
be available for rental at least 38 weeks each year through a central reservation and check-
in service operated by the resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS
696.010;
iv. A provision in the resort CC&R's that all property owners within the resort recognize that
failure to meet the conditions in DCC 18.113.060(L)(6)(b)(iii) is a violation of Deschutes
County Code and subject to code enforcement proceedings by the County;
v. Inclusion of language in any rental contract between the owner of an individually-owned
residential unit designated as an overnight lodging unit and any central reservation and
check-in service or real estate property manager requiring that such unit be available for
rental at least 38 weeks each year through a central reservation and check-in service
operated by the resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010, and
that failure to meet the conditions in DCC 18.113.060(L)(6)(b)(v) is a violation of
Deschutes County Code and subject to code enforcement proceedings by the County.
(Ord. 2007-05 §2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
Chapter 18.113 9 (02/2008)
18.113.070. Approval Criteria.
In order to approve a destination resort, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find from substantial
evidence in the record that:
A. The subject proposal is a destination resort as defined in DCC 18.040.030.
B.. All standards established by DCC 18.113.060 are or will be met.
C. The economic analysis demonstrates that:
1. The necessary financial resources are available for the applicant to undertake the development
consistent with the minimum investment requirements established by DCC 18.113.
2. Appropriate assurance has been submitted by lending institutions or other financial entities that the
developer has or can reasonably obtain adequate financial support for the proposal once approved.
3. The destination resort will provide a substantial financial contribution which positively benefits the
local economy throughout the life of the entire project, considering changes in employment,
demands for new or increased levels of public service, housing for employees and the effects of loss
of resource land.
4. The natural amenities of the site considered together with the identified developed recreation
facilities to be provided with the resort, will constitute a primary attraction to visitors, based on the
economic feasibility analysis.
D. Any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net
loss or net degradation of the resource.
E. Important natural features, including but not limited to significant wetlands, riparian habitat, and
landscape management corridors will be maintained. Riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams,
rivers and significant wetlands will be maintained. Alterations to important natural features, including
placement of structures, is allowed so long as the overall values of the feature are maintained.
F. The development will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices or significantly
increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.
G. Destination resort developments that significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that the
development is consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This
shall be accomplished by either:
1. Limiting the development to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service
of the transportation facility;
2. Providing transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed development consistent with
Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, Division 12; or
3. Altering land use densities, design requirements or using other methods to reduce demand for
automobile travel and to meet travel needs through other modes.
A destination resort significantly affects a transportation facility if it would result in levels of travel
or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of a facility or would reduce the
level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the relevant
transportation system plan.
a. Where the option of providing transportation facilities is chosen, the applicant shall be required
to improve impacted roads to the full standards of the affected authority as a condition of
approval. Timing of such improvements shall be based upon the timing of the impacts created
by the development as determined by the traffic study or the recommendations of the affected
road authority.
b. Access within the project shall be adequate to serve the project in a safe and efficient manner
for each phase of the project.
H. The development will not create the potential for natural hazards identified in the County
Comprehensive Plan. No structure will be located on slopes exceeding 25 percent. A wildfire
management plan will be implemented to ensure that wildfire hazards are minimized to the greatest
extent practical and allow for safe evacuation. With the exception of the slope restriction of DCC
18.113.070, which shall apply to destination resorts in forest zones, wildfire management of destination
Chapter 18.113 10 (02/2008)
resorts in forest zones shall be subject to the requirements of DCC 18.40.070, where applicable, as to
each individual structure and dwelling.
1. Adequate public safety protection will be available through existing fire districts or will be provided
onsite according to the specification of the state fire marshal. If the resort is located outside of an
existing fire district the developer will provide for staffed structural fire protection services. Adequate
public facilities to provide for necessary safety services such as police and fire will be provided on the
site to serve the proposed development.
J. Streams and drainage. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the adjoining property owner(s),
existing natural drainages on the site will not be changed in any manner which interferes with drainage
patterns on adjoining property. All surface water drainage changes created by the development will be
contained on site in a manner which meets all standards of the Oregon State Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). The erosion control plan for the subject development will meet. all
standards of ORS 468.
K. Adequate water will be available for all proposed uses at the destination resort, based upon the water
study and a proposed water conservation plan. Water use will not reduce the availability of water in the
water impact areas identified in the water study considering existing uses and potential development
previously approved in the affected area. Water sources shall not include any perched water table.
Water shall only be taken from the regional aquifer. Where a perched water table is pierced to access
the regional aquifer, the well must be sealed off from the perched water table.
L. The wastewater disposal plan includes beneficial use to the maximum extent practicable. Approval of
the CMP shall be conditioned on applicant's making application to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) permit consistent with such an approved wastewater disposal plan. Approval shall
also be conditioned upon applicant's compliance with applicable Oregon Administrative Rules
regarding beneficial use of waste water, as determined by DEQ. Applicant shall receive approval of a
WPCF permit consistent with this provision prior to applying for approval for its Final Master Plan
under DCC 18.113.
M. The resort will mitigate any demands it creates on publicly-owned recreational facilities on public lands
in the surrounding area.
N. Site improvements will be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on the
surrounding land uses. Measures to accomplish this may include establishment and maintenance of
buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses, including natural vegetation and appropriate fences,
berms, landscaped areas and similar types of buffers; and setback of structures and other developments
from adjacent land uses.
0. The resort will be served by an on-site sewage system approved by DEQ and a water system approved
by the Oregon State Health Division except where connection to an existing public sewer or water
system is allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan, such service will be provided to the resort.
P. The destination resort will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner that substantially
limits, impairs or prevents permitted or conditional uses of surrounding properties.
Q. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of the destination resort will be
contained within the development and will not be oriented to public highways adjacent to the property.
Commercial, cultural and entertainment uses allowed within the destination resort will be incidental to
the resort itself. As such, these ancillary uses will be permitted only at a scale suited to serve visitors to
the resort.
The commercial uses permitted in the destination resort will be limited in type, location, number,
dimensions and scale (both individually and cumulatively) to that necessary to serve the needs of resort
visitors. A commercial use is necessary to serve the needs of visitors if:
1. Its primary purpose is to provide goods or services that are typically provided to overnight or other
short-term visitors to the resort, or the use is necessary for operation, maintenance or promotion of
the destination resort; and
2. The use is oriented to the resort and is located away from or screened from highways or other major
through roadways.
Chapter 18.113 11 (02/2008)
R. A plan exists to ensure a transfer of common areas, facilities such as sewer, water, streets and
responsibility for police and fire protection to owners' associations or similar groups if contemplated. If
such transfer is not contemplated, the owner or responsible party shall be clearly designated. Adequate
open space, facility maintenance and police and fire protection shall be ensured in perpetuity in a
manner acceptable to the County.
S. Temporary structures will not be allowed unless approved as part of the CMP. Temporary structures
will not be allowed for more than 18 months and will be subject to all use and site plan standards of
DCC Title 18.
T. The open space management plan is sufficient to protect in perpetuity identified open space values.
(Ord. 2007-5 §2, 2007; Ord. 92-032 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
18.113.075. Imposition of Conditions.
The standards made applicable by DCC 18.113 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to
insure that the standard will be met.
(Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
18.113.080. Procedure for Modification of a Conceptual Master Plan.
Any substantial change, as determined by the Planning Director, proposed to an approved CMP shall be
reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP. An insubstantial change may be approved by the
Planning Director. Substantial change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC 18.113.080, means an
alteration in the type, scale, location, phasing or other characteristic of the proposed development such that
findings of fact on which the original approval was based would be materially affected.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.090. Requirements for Final Master Plan.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide a Final Master Plan (IMP) which includes text and
graphics explaining and illustrating:
A. The use, location, size and design of all important natural features, open space, buffer areas and
common areas;
B. The use and general location of all buildings, other than residential dwellings and the proposed density
of residential development by location;
C. Preliminary location of all sewer, water, storm drainage and other utility facilities and materials, and
specifications and installation methods for water and waste water systems;
D. Location and widths of all roads, streets, parking, pedestrian ways, equestrian trails and bike paths;
E. Methods to be employed to buffer and mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent resource uses and
property;
F. Building elevations of visitor-oriented accommodations, recreational facilities and commercial services
sufficient to demonstrate the architectural character of the proposed development;
G. A description of all commercial uses including approximate size and floor area;
H. The location of or distance to any emergency medical facilities and public safety facilities;
1. When a phase includes a residential subdivision, a general layout of the subdivision shall include the
number of lots, minimum and maximum lot sizes, and approximate location of roadways shall be
included:
J. A description of measures taken, with copies of deed restrictions, CC&R's and rental contracts, to
implement the requirements of DCC 18.113.060(L).
K. A description of measures taken, with copies of deed restrictions and a final management plan, to
implement the open space management plan required by DCC 18.113.
L. The status of all required off-site roadway improvements.
M. Methods to be employed for managing automobile traffic demand.
Chapter 18.113 12 (02/2008)
N. A copy of a WPCF permit issued by DEQ consistent with the requirements of DCC 18.113.070(L).
(Ord. 2007-005 §2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
18.113.100. Procedure for Approval of Final Master Plan.
A. The FMP shall be submitted in a form approved by the County Planning Director consistent with DCC
Title 22 for a development permit. The Planning Director shall review the IMP and if the Planning
Director finds that all standards of the CMP have been met, the FMP shall be approved in writing
without notice. If approval the IMP involves the exercise of discretion, the FMP shall be treated as a
land use action and notice shall be provided in accordance with DCC Title 22;
B. If the Planning Director finds evidence in the IMP of a substantial change from the CMP, the Planning
Director shall advise the applicant to submit an application for modification or amendment of the CMP.
(Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992)
18.113.110. Provision of Streets, Utilities, Developed Recreational Facilities and
Visitor-Oriented Accommodations.
A. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that all streets, utilities, developed recreational
facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations required by the IMP are physically provided or are
guaranteed through surety bonding or substantial financial assurances approved by the County prior to
closure of sale of individual lots or units.
B. Financial assurance or bonding to assure completion of streets and utilities, developed recreational
facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations in the IMP shall be required pursuant to the security
requirements for site plan review and subdivision review established by the Deschutes County Code.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992; Ord. 92-003 § 1, 1992)
18.113.120. Conservation Easement to Protect Resource Site.
A. If a tract to be used as a destination resort contains a resource site designated for protection in an
acknowledged comprehensive plan pursuant to open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural
resource goals, that tract of land shall preserve the resource site by conservation easement sufficient to
protect the resource values of the resource site in accordance with ORS 271.715 to 271.795.
B. A conservation easement under DCC 18.113.120 shall be recorded with the property records of the tract
on which the destination resort is sited.
(Ord. 2007-005 §2, 2007)
(Zoning maps adopted by Ord. 92-031 § 1, 1992)
Chapter 18.113 13 (02/2008)
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment I Public Hearing
as of 5:00 p.m., September 17,,., ;rI0
Writtea Testimony
Ken Admed
Gary & Barbara Barnett
Keith . be' A.
Brett . , 'Borders
Linda Cady
Becky Cyrus
Brian Cyrus
Willard & Gretchen ';Dakin ,
Kay Dannen
Frank;and Kathy Deggendorfer
Eva Eagle .
Rick Evans
Marianne Fellner
Norma Funai .
Charles & Ardis - Gibson
Nunzie'Gould
Jane Gragg
'Frank &:Margery :Guthrie
Douglas Hancock
Bea
Hess
Wendy & Alan' Holzman
Derek Johnson .
Erik Kancler
Mary Ann Kollenberg
Kay Knott
Bea Leach
Roger Lee
Steve & Terri Loveland
Martha ` Lussenhop
Carol , Macbeth
William Millen
Karen" Fred Mueller
AJ Nyars
Anne Nyars
Julie. Nyars
'Phoebe Bowen Olson
Matt Phillips
Robert & Harriet . Rossio
Eric Sande
Richard &Zeta- Seiple
Torrey Sharp
Cash Smith
Phyllis k Ruts 'Smith-,
Richard . Van Winkle
Document Reproduces 'Poorly
(Archived)
Sep 16 00 07:51p Kara
541-549-9~29 p.1
September 11, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St.
fiend, OR 97701
Dear Board of Commissioners,
Z support approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~o ~x s3~
S"t ! - 5-,~,r7 - ~3 7
Gary and Barbara Barnett
16922 Royal Coachman Dr.
Sisters, Oregon 97755
541549 6088
Deschutes Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR 97701
9/2/2008
Dear Commissioners:
Subject: TA-07-7
I am writing this letter in support of the Amendment to the County Code proposed by the
Aspen Lakes Developer.
We fully agree with the Cyrus family in their effort to complete the Destination Resort as they
have proposed it. We have always understood that the Destination Resort would be built on
the section to the north-west of the existing Aspen Lakes Golf Course. This is spelled out
clearly in the original CC&R's given to us at the time we purchased our home at Aspen Lakes in
2001. The recently completed Club House and the existing Golf Course were conceived as a
part of the amenities needed by the planned Resort. When completed the Aspen Lakes Resort
will be an asset to Deschutes County and the City of Sisters providing both needed tax revenue
and employment.
CED
SEP 0 8 2008
Sincerely - Deschutes County M
Gary and arbara Barnett
a SEP - 5 2008
_J
j BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ADMINISTRATION
J
September 16, 2008
Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners
1300 N.W. Wall Street, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Commissioners:
My wife and I would like to voice our full support for approval of the text amendment to
the County Code as proposed'by the developers of the Aspen Lakes Golf Course and its
residential community.
Destination resorts have played a very significant role in Central Oregon's economic
development and they have successfully provided an opportunity to expose visitors to all
that we have to offer here. As has often been the case, many of these visitors return to
purchase homes-often in the resorts themselves. Some of these new residents also bring
their businesses with them. This importation of new residents with resources, talent,
education, work experience and contacts is vital in fueling our regional economy,
business, and job growth.
Moreover, it is a fact that destination resorts and the properties within them in Deschutes
County represent some of the largest taxpayers in the area.
The market, rather than public policy, will determine the limit to the number of resorts
this area can adequately support. In the meantime, we urge you to grant approval of this
amendment thus enabling Aspen Lakes to move forward on their efforts to obtain_ resort
designation.
Thank you.
Sincerply,
Keith Bel"( -
Aspen Lakes Estates
16965 Green Drake Court
Sisters, OR 97759
Phone: (541) 549-6630
9/16/2008 2:05:39 PM Me Myself & I Inc. 18664729547
Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St
Bend, OR 97701
Via fax:
385-1764
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
I support approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincere) J
,Y 71~~-
Brett Borders
Sisters, OR 97759
~~.j
~~~r;i
. ~P__
s..
_ _ . l~
SEP-1i-2001 0,4:338 FROM:ORC.E 5415048263 TO:3851764
9/15/08
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
I support approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Becky Cyrus
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St
Bend, OR 97701
Fax: 385-1764
P.1
RKEIVED
SEP 1 6 2008
DELIVE ED BY:
Brian Cyrus
~
1975 SW 55`h Street
Redmond OR 97756
541-923-2486
September 17, 2008
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
I support approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7, Aspen Lames is an asset to the community and I feel any
further development they aspire to will be as beautiful and beneficial as their current project. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Cyrus
T'd
t%9LTse2:01
292Bb- ST t, -S
dJ,~U 1J0;~d HT'S:?ll !t_11-1C-_,T-,`I~
Page 1 of 1
Peter Gutowsky
From: Bill Dakin [wsdakin@outlawnet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Board
Subject: Text Amendment 07-7
To: Tammy Barnes, Mike Daly, and Dennis Luke,
We urge you to vote no on'Aspens Lakes request to develop a destination resort. This would have a major impact on the area
effecting everything from higher density, over 500 additional units, water, and traffic.
Your County Planning Commission rejected this proposal, so we ask you to say no also.
Thank You,
Willard and Gretchen Dakin
9/17/2008
UUiioizuve iz:oo FAX 5413851764 DES CO CDD
Sep 16 eO 11:058 SHIELS OBLETZ JOHNSEN
September 16, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97801
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
IM 002/002
(5031299-6769 p,2
I am the owner of property in Deschutes County at 562 W, Jefferson, Sisters, Oregon. I strongly
support the approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7 for Aspen Lakes.
Aspen Lakes has been a very positive addition to Deschutes County and has provided an economic
benefit to the County while maintaining the quality of life for homeowners who have purchased there,
Please consider my recommendation for approval for Text Amendment TA-07-7.
Sincerely,
4
Kay Dannen
3570 5W River Parkway, #1403
Portland, OR 97239
503/478-6404
RECEIVED
sire 1 7
Deschutes County CDD
Pagel of 2
Peter Gutowsky
From: Terri Hansen Payne
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:01 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: TA-o7-7 Destination Resorts
This is yours. Thanks!
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 3:48 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: TA-o7-7 Destination Resorts
From: Frank Deggendorfer [mailto:frank@fastcreekproductions.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Board
Cc: Frank Deggendorfer
Subject: TA-o7-7 Destination Resorts
August 14, 2008
Deschutes County. Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Attn: Dennis Luke, Mike Daly, Tammy Melton
Dear Sir or Madam:
In reference to your recent mailing concerning file number TA-07-7 we would like to be put on record as opposing the
proposed amendments. Our two tax lots cover over three hundred acres of EFU land that border the proposed project
on two separate sides.
In 1996 we purchased our property with the understanding that our neighbors, Aspen Lakes, applied for and received a
conditional use permit to develop two rural subdivisions. The first being the Rim at Aspen Lakes and the second being
the cluster development at Aspen Lakes surrounding the golf course. Based on the conditional use permit they were
allowed to cluster a total of 144 lots. The remaining land was to be left as open space. One hundred thirty six home
sites were developed and sold. This left eight home sites to be plotted on the remaining open space. Case should be
closed on any more development of this land.
Nineteen years after their initial conditional use permit they say that part of their overall strategy was to incrementally
convert to a Destination Resort. This doesn't mesh with their past actions. Why did they attempt to surface mine in the
open space below their first rural subdivision, the Rim at Aspen Lakes? Why did they plat 117 home sites that would
not conform to the density of their proposed Destination Resort vision? Why was Golden Stone Drive graded out and
paved two years ago with disregard to the setback requirements of their Destination Resort vision?
By approving this amendment the county will create a substantial impact on our ability to fully utilize our agricultural
8/14/2008
Page 2 of 2
land. A berm and/or a setback will not be a sufficient buffer to shelter Aspen Lakes from the noise, the dust, nor the
smells of a normal agricultural operation. Nor would a berm protect us from the problems created by a Destination
Resort. Based on their plat plan presented to us we find that their settling pond would be on our north property line.
With the prevailing winds, guess what their legacy to us would be?
Also, with the increase in cattle and hay prices we find that we may now be considered high value farmland as would
other agricultural lands within three miles of the proposed resort.
By bringing in one hundred fifty separate rental units and additional home sites to the once preserved open space
identified in the original conditional use permit of Aspen Lakes, I ask... is this preserving the rural character of the
surrounding area?
We also disagree with the burden of proof provided to Deschutes County. There will be adverse affects to goals 3, 5, 6,
and 13 if this amendment is approved due to the fact that you will be opening the door for a destination resort on non
contiguous property.
Thank you for your time.
Frank and Kathy Deggendorfer
8/14/2008
Pagel of 2
Peter Gutowsky
From: Tom Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: Proposed Text Change to County Code 18.113.025
From: Tammy Melton
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:19 AM
To: 'Eva Eagle'
Cc: Tom Anderson
Subject: RE: Proposed Text Change to County Code 18.113.025
Hi Eva-
Sorry for the delay. Thank you for sharing your comments and concerns regarding this upcoming hearing. I appreciate you
taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that I have forwarded your email for inclusion in the public
record.
In Partnership,
Tt2w,vulU (g2v1,eU) Me[tov,
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
Cell: 541 419-2233
From: Eva Eagle [mailto:eva.eagle@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Board
Subject: Proposed Text Change to County Code 18.113.025
August 16, 2008
I urge the Commissioners to reject the request to County Code 18.113.025 related to existing resorts and cluster
developments. This appeal from the developers of Aspen Lakes Golf Estates, which you will be considering in
September, is a very bad idea not only in the abstract-retroactively changing the development rules for existing
cluster developments-but also because it opens the door for undesirable development in the Camp Polk area.
This proposal will enable the developers to bring more people into an environment that is quite delicate.
Whychus Creek is just coming back to health and steelhead fry were just reintroduced barely downstream from the
developers' proposed hotel site. With housing sites close to this endangered stream, more development here is likely
to give a setback to the restoration of this historically and ecologically important stream.
This proposal will lead to unacceptable traffic impacts. If this change is approved, the Aspen Lakes developers
will be asking to create a lodge and more clustered housing along Camp Polk Road, leading to dangerously high
traffic. Camp Polk Road is a popular bicycling route, and good cycling brings tourist dollars into the Sisters Country.
The plans behind this code change proposal would greatly increase the number of vehicle trips, making the road
dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians. This two-lane road crosses Whychus Creek not far from the proposed
development area and then progresses north past a land preserve. It's hard to imagine good traffic mitigation that
would be consistent with the health of these protected areas.
This proposal will spoil the rural character of our neighborhood. I live behind Panoramic Estates on a 37 acre
parcel, having moved here for the quiet and the open space. The neighborhood lot size is a minimum of five acres, so
oioi~rdQQ
l / L / L V
Page 2 of 2
even the existing Aspen Lakes developments are much more dense than anything else in the area. Opening up the
development to the destination resort concept will create a wholly different level of land use, traffic, and noise.
Certainly there is a place for lodges in Deschutes County, but not in this peaceful neighborhood where people have
come to live quietly and simply.
But most of all, it is bad policy to make retroactive changes to development rules. Aspen Lakes was not set up
from the beginning as a destination resort, thus violating a strong requirement of existing State and County law. There
is no way that some `add-on' development could achieve the care and balance that must be taken when planning a
destination resort from scratch. The proposed change opens Pandora's box all across the County, as well as here in the
Camp Polk area.
The proposed change is bad law, inconsistent with the County's need to plan growth carefully and insure that
when rules are relaxed, they benefit the public rather than a few special interests.
Please vote `No' on September 17.
Sincerely,
Eva Eagle
17212 Pine Drive
Sisters, OR
2; 2004
09/17/2008 10:53 FAX 541 388 0456 Combined Comm
~'S- "7 6 1
3
9/17/08
Deschutes Co. Board of Commissioners
I would like to voice my support for Aspen
Lakes, the Cyrus Family and their
designation as a destination resort.
I have know them for 20 years and they
are tremendous stewards of the land.
They are recognized by the National Audubon
Society for the development of the Golf Course.
I can guarantee that they will do what is best for
the environment and Central Oregon. -
With this in mind I hope you grant them Resort
Status.
Thppk You.
Rick Evans
Combined Communications
PO Box 6381
Bend Or. 97708
541-977-2945 cell
la 001
Deschutes County Commissioners
1300 Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
Sept 16, 2008
TA-07-7
RE: Aspen Lakes Golf Course Estates proposal to amend destination resort guidelines
Dear Commissioners,
I object to the proposal to change the text of our land use laws in order to facilitate the
conversion of subdivisions such as Aspen Lakes residential community into a destination
resort. This would subvert the process that determines the criteria for resorts regarding
water use, open spaces, wildlife and environmental impact, traffic studies, lodging
requirements, etc. Every aspect of lifestyle that affects the surrounding rural community.
The intent of the law is not that a residential development evolve into a destination resort
over time, it is to create a specific plan for development that subscribes to criteria.
The addition of more high water demand resorts should be examined as a group. We must
clarify the effects of heavy water use on the Metolious Basin and the Deschutes Basin
Aquifer before adding users. The effects of the current demands on the aquifer are still
unclear. There is a recent study by Mark Yinger that documents a drop in the well levels
of local wells. This is a trend that precedes the proposed water use for the proposed
Thornburgh Resort's 3 golf courses, extravagant landscaping and water features.
As the market and sale of homes at resorts has diminished so sharply, why proceed with
creating additional resorts before we complete refining the laws to reflect current times?
Developers should not be able to change local laws to suit their economic ambitions.
Land use laws can not be changed for the benefit of one family in the community, as it
sets the precedence for other developers to change subdivisions into resorts. It should not
be easier to acquire a destination resort zoning after the fact than through the procedure
that is required by the laws. Please do not undermine our state laws and county guidelines.
Sincerely,
Marianne Fellner
64688 Cook Ave
Bend, OR 97701
Peter Gutowsky
From:
Tammy Melton
Sent:
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:11 PM
To:
'Norma Funai'
Cc:
Peter Gutowsky; Mike Daly; Dennis Luke
Subject:
RE: Aspen Lake Resort Text Amendment
Hi Norma-
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 forwarded for
inclusion in the public record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
Cell: 541 419-2233
-----Original Message-----
From: Norma Funai [mailto:funai@outlawnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 3:38 PM
To: Tammy Melton
Subject: Aspen Lake Resort Text Amendment
Dear Tammy,
This email is sent to urge your vote of opposition to the Aspen Lakes Resort Text
Amendment.
I have lived in the Sage Meadow area , near Camp Polk road for the past 15 years and am
involved with the Deschutes Land Trust as a volunteer guide for the Camp Polk Meadow
Preserve. As I see it this project would impact the entire infrastructure of our local
water system. There is only a finite amount of water in this aquifer (which recharges
Whychus Creek), and the effect of large volume groundwater pumping to existing residents
wells is a real issue. The restoration of fish habitat in Whychus Creek but PGE, Warm
Springs Reservation, and numerous trusts and conservancies has been going on for many
years and new water well for this huge proposed resort development would certainly impact
the stream flow needed for that habitat.
The single county road (Camp Polk Road) serving this proposed resort would need costly
improvements to its sharp curves, steep grade and the narrow bridge over Whychus Creek to
safely accommodate the traffic of a new 'city' at Aspen lakes.
These two issues alone should give you pause ...I understand that the county planning
commission has voted No on this amendment and I strongly urge you to follow their lead.
Thank you for listening to me.
Norma J. Funai
funai@outlawnet.com
69726 West Meadow Parkway
Sister, OR, 97759
5492104
1
September 11, 2008
Deschutes Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
As property owners in the Aspen Lakes Golf Course Development for the past eight
years, we have known of and are in support of the Aspen Lakes Resort
Development.
The Resort will bring needed Tax Revenue to the County, School District and the
Fire Protection District. Employment and business in the Sisters area will also be
increased by the Aspen Lakes Resort Development.
The Aspen Lakes Golf Course Development currently completed by the Cyrus
Family, is exceptional in quality and is in keeping with the balance of land usage,
maintaining the open space Oregonians desire.
We are confident the new Aspen Lakes Resort will be developed with the same
quality and care for the environment, used in Aspen Lakes Golf Course.
Sincerely 4
Charles F. Gibson
Ardis M. Gibson -
16912 Royal Coachman Drive
Sisters, Oregon 97759
r,
f" r
UO8
BOARD 0
-~Oh1MSTRATI ~NERS
September 17, 2008 By email: <boaad@deschutes.org>
By fax: # 541-385-3202
Deschutes County Commissioners
Mike Daly, Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton
Please submit this into your September 17, 2008 5:30pm public hearing record.
RE: TA-07-7 Aspen Lakes
Greetings County Commissioners:
Back in February 9, 2006, your Planning Commission recommended to
your Commission that Deschutes County not accept applicant driven text
amendments to adopt destination resort remapping process and criteria (TA-04-
4).
TA-07-7 is an applicant driven text amendment that would allow a cluster
development to morph into a destination resort. TA-07-7 is an applicant driven
text amendment that retroactively permits criteria for a destination resort.
I encourage you to vote against TA-07-7.
I have written detailed comments on April 14, 2008 into the Deschutes
County Planning Commission's Record re TA-07-7 : 2 pages accompanied by
attachments (1-3). 1 trust that your County Commission will read my comments
that are part of the record and that your Commission will capture the broad
negative impact from approving TA-07-7.
Vote against TA-07-7
o protect Deschutes County livability
o committ to preserve open space
o respect the purpose and process of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan
Update
o protect water and wildlife resources
o protect the integrity and resources of the City of Sisters
o protect the City of Sisters' economic viability and future UGB expansion
needs
o prioritize County SDC transportation monies to fund existing projects in
need before creating more transportation infrastructure demands which will
compete for the County's limited financial resources.
For the reasons listed above, I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nunzie Gould
19845 JW Brown Rd, Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3325
cc: Brad Boyd, mayor City of Sisters
Jane K. Gragg
5235 Riddell Road
Monmouth, OR 97361
September 17, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Text Amendment TA-07-7
Dear Commissioners,
Though I currently reside in Monmouth, I have owned several acres in the Sisters area for
many years and may retire there in the near future. Thus, I have an interest in the issue
at hand.
I want to be on record as supporting the request for the text amendment to the County
Code proposed by the developers of Aspen Lakes Golf Course for their destination
resort. I believe the proposed amendment is fair and reasonable considering other
resorts in the county have been granted the same setback and lot size requirement
and the Aspen Lakes resort was laid out and developed before the change in the
code.
If the Aspen Lakes Golf Course and home sites are any indication, the Cyrus family has
been diligent in protecting the environment and preserving the character of the
landscape. Besides benefiting individual property owners and residents by providing
additional recreational opportunities , the proposed destination resort will benefit the
community and the state as a whole. It will provide jobs and financial opportunities in
an economy that sorely needs them and additional dollars to the state and local
coffers. It gives additional opportunities for citizens of this state and visitors from others to
enjoy the region. Only positives come to mind in considering the Aspen Lakes resort.
Considering all the positives that this resort can bring, I would think that the Commission
and County would. do what they can to help make it happen.
Sincerely,
Jane K. Gragg
September 5, 2008
Deschutes County Commissioners
C/o Peter Gutowsky
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Aspen Lakes Text Amendment File # TA-07-7
To our Commissioners:
At the Planning Commission hearings on this subject, there was considerable time spent by the
appellant/developer and supporters to establish logic for their request. While they may wish there were
such a pathway, it is very clear that a cluster development and a destination resort have directly
opposite purposes and intentions and thus are mutually exclusive. In fairness to all people involved,
including their, our, and your time and expense, and to the rule of law and prior agreements, this
request should be rejected promptly and forcefully.
The wording in the county code states that the open spaces of a cluster development are intended to
remain as open spaces "in perpetuity," with no further development permitted, in order to "preserve
rural values." A destination resort, with its transient lodging, is directed toward tourism, and the
necessary amenities for this purpose create a small city with few if any rural values.
Once a developer has started down one path, there is no logic at all to jumping to the other. In this
case, the county and the developer agreed to the cluster development course, with no stated or implied
intention to change to a destination resort. There was then and is now nothing in the law, codes, or any
agreement to suggest that such an illogical reversal of the purpose of the development was or is
intended or possible. The purchasers of property in the Rim at Aspen Lakes (and at least some in the
Golf Course Estates) not only relied on this agreement to define the character of the area but also had
no reason to even guess that such a change of intent and direction would or could come about. The
current residents of both cluster developments have been relying on the developer's original plans for
the cluster development and have, through their purchases, provided the funds for the completion of a
successful residential and commercial development at Aspen Lakes.
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to guide the development in this beautiful county.
Respectfully submitte ,
Frank and Margery Guthrie RECEMD
Homeowners, The Rim at Aspen Lakes
SEP 0 8 2008
Deschutes County CDD
Page 1 of 1
Peter Gutowsky
From: Dennis Luke
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:41 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: Aspen Lakes Destination Resort (Deschutes County Text Amendment07-7)
From: Douglas Hancock [mailto:doug@hancockhughey.com]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 11:20 AM
To: Board
Subject: Aspen Lakes Destination Resort (Deschutes County Text Amendment07-7)
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my concerns about and opposition to the proposed destination resort at Aspen Lakes (Deschutes County
Text Amendment 07-7).
1 have owned and operated a business in Sisters for over a decade. The destination resort proposed at Aspen Lakes would
have significant adverse impacts on the greater Sisters community, including among other things adverse impacts on traffic and
infrastructure. As you are undoubtedly aware, traffic problems in Sisters have reached a breaking point. While the City is
working on an updated Transportation System Plan, even modest improvements to traffic flow are many years off. The scope of
the resort is substantial and it may have significant adverse impact on the water table in the surrounding area, which as you
know is highly agricultural.
The planned destination resort would violate numerous state and county planning guidelines. For example, it sidesteps state
overnight lodging requirements for a destination resort and wildlife concerns cannot be mitigated under Statewide Planning Goal
5. It should be denied on those bases alone.
But what's more, the county planning commission and state DLCD advised against allowing this resort to go forward. Approval
of it would run contrary to recommendations of the planning commission and DLCD and would set a dangerous precedent for
other developers who would do the same thing. Allowing the project to go forward also gives special preferential status to the
owners of the proposed resort.
There is growing sentiment in Oregon that destination resorts need to be reined in because they are adversely affecting the
livability of our state. The problem is especially acute in Central Oregon where we have a large number of destination resorts.
Voters in Crook County recently passed an advisory measure that is a clear indication that citizens in Central Oregon are very
concerned about rampant development of destination resorts because the adverse impacts they cause. The state is currently
revisiting in a "big look" review its land use regulations and the destination resort guidelines will be a major component of that
review.
In short, there are many procedural and rule-based reasons why the Aspen Lakes destination resort should be denied. But in
addition, the county commission should pay heed to the sentiment in Oregon against new destination resorts.
Thank you for your consideration
Douglas Hancock
P.O. Box 1208
Sisters, Oregon 97759
9!~5!2~~R
Page 1 of 1
Peter Gutowsky
From: RTMustang@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:08 AM
To: Board
Subject: [Fraud?] Vote no on Text Ammendment 07-7
To Tammy Baney, Mike Daly and Dennis Luke:
It is my opinion that you should vote no on Text Amendment 07-7. Changing the county planning
guidelines would not be a good idea. I think you should go along with the County Planning
commission and reject the proposal for a destination resort at Aspen Lakes. Bea Hess 16004
Cattle Drive Rd, Sisters OR
Psssst...Have you heard the news? MaIIScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.stylelist.com"
claiming to be There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
Page 1 of 1
Peter Gutowsky
From: Dennis Luke
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:39 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: Aspen Lakes Text Amendment - TA-07-7
From: Wendy Holzman [mailto:wendomere@gmaii.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 10:06 PM
To: Board
Subject: Aspen Lakes Text Amendment - TA-07-7
Dear County Commissioners,
We are writing to ask you to uphold the decision by your county staff to deny this text amendment. We are concerned that it:
1) Violates state and county planning guidelines,
2) Sets a precedent for other developers to convert subdivisions to resorts,
3) Skirts overnight lodging requirements for a resort, because the resort is not starting on bare ground and therefore wildlife
mitigation cannot be adequately assured,
4) Gives special treatment to one developer and allowing it would go against advice of county planning dept., county planning
commigsion and state Dept. of Land Conservation and Development,
5) Will increase traffic on rural roads and impact the roads and infrastructure of Sisters (where we are citizens),
6) Will impact Whychus Creek at a time when steelhead and salmon reintroduction as begun, along with Endangered Species Act
implications for the creek,
7) Will negatively impact other wildlife along the corridor bordering Whychus Creek.
Therefore, because of these issues, we are hoping you will not grant the text amendment for the Aspen Lakes Development
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Wendy and Alan Holzman
324 E. Wapato Loop
Sisters. OR 97759
9/15/2008
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, 9/11/08
I have been a Central Oregon resident for 23 years and strongly support the approval of
Text Amendment TA-07-7. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Derek A. Johnson
1023 East Cascade Ave.
Sisters. OR 97759
Page I of I
Peter Gutowsky
From: MARYANN KOLLENBERG [mkollenberg@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:05 PM
To: Board
Subject: Aspen Lakes resort TA07-7
Dear Commissioners:
As a resident and voter of Deschutes County, I clearly see that you have no option but to vote NO! on converting Aspen Lakes
gated community to become a destination resort.
To do so would put you in the position of breaking the law. I'm confident that you know all the reason why each one of you
should vote no:
The proposal violates Deschutes County Code 18.113, is in conflict with Title 18, and allow a developer to build on open space
previously set aside as a requirement for an earlier residential development.
You would also be going against the wishes of your own.Planning Commission, Deschutes County's lawyer, the state Department
of Land Conservation and Development by violating local and state planning law.
To vote yes on this proposal shows nothing but political reasoning, something none of you were elected to carry out.
None of the above points touch on the sensitivity of Whychus Creek regarding fisheries, water resources, recreation, ecology, and
over all health of it's environment.
You may feel that increased Tax Dollars for the County out weigh any benefits you'd gain by voting no. If this is true, your in
complete denial.
Thank you for listening.
Mary Ann Kollenberg
56365 Solar Drive
Bend, OR 97707
9/I 7/2008
CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH
1 47 SW S H E V L I N H I X O N DR. # 206
BEND, OR 97702
PHONE: (541) 647-1567
FAX: (541) 647-1568
W W W. C E N T R A L O R E G O N L A N D W A T C H. O R G
rotecting Central Oregon's natural environment
nd working for sustainable communities.
September 17, 2008
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
c/o Peter Gutowsky
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
Re: TA-07-7 (Aspen Lakes)
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing for Central Oregon LandWatch in opposition to this proposed text amendment.
The rules allowing the creation of destination resorts should not be expanded, and if there should be
any changes in the County resort code and mapping it should be done in the context of the County's
already-scheduled comprehensive plan update. LandWatch has already expressed its support for this
effort by the County.
LandWatch has long been concerned with the cumulative effects of already built and approved
destination resorts on the rural character of the county, water supply, transportation, competition
with cities for development, emergency services, fish and wildlife, etc. Where the County has
already started a process to address these issues, and the state's Department of Land Conservation
this is not the time to be amending and loosening the rules so that one particular party can pursue a
destination resort development.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
ERIK KANCLER
Executive Director
cc: Board
09/17/08 01:37pm P. 001
September 1.6, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Comm.issi.oners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, Or 97701-1.960
Kay Knott
68308 Cloverdale Rd..
Sisters, Or 97759
Re: Aspen Lakes T.A,-07-7
Dear Conunission.ers:
I am writing in support of the adoption of TA-07-7 proposed by Aspen Lakes. Aspen
Lakes, as it exists, was constructed with the intention of converting to a. Destination.
Resort and as such was constructed complying with the requirements in place at the time
of construction., The Cyrus family has been diligently working toward that goal siltce the
inception of the project. The text amendment requests two changes: 1) to "Grandfather "
the provision regarding the minimum buffer distance lxorn the property line of a
destination resort and the nearest road, and 2) increase the minimum lot.sire
requirement- These amendments seem reasonable and have a historical precedence with
other resort developments in the region.
I encourage you to con.si.der this request in a favorable light. It is only fair to assist
citizens who have worked toward a specific goal only to have the rules changed in
midstream. In addition this proposal can only benefit the county arid. the community.
1 appreciate your favorable consideration upon reviewing this request.
Sincerely,
Kay Knott
EEA LEACH
Principal Broker
Bra Leflch tfun
TELEPHONE
541-729-2274 Cell
541-923-4663 Office
FAX
511-923-6416
C
E-MATE
bcal Cn ~~indumac.com
WEB
www.resorthomefinders.com
ADDRESS
1020 SW Indian Am. Ste 100
Redmond, Oregon 97756
I1
Windermere
April 18, 2008
To Deschutes County Paroling
Aspen lakes Text Amendment
o Whom it may concern,
wn stating my opinion regarding the amending the text, so Aspen
akes can move on and get started for their future development - The
iision they are offering world bring jobs, tourism , and of course more
rnconie to the County revenue.
i-ndennere Central Oregon Real Estate
020 SW Indian Ave Ste 100
:ednlond, Oregon 97756
41 788 2274
RECEIVED
SEP 0 3 2008
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Deschutes County CDD
FOR CENTRAL OREGON EXCELLENCE IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
August 28, 2008
Deschutes Board of Commissioners
c/o Dave Kanner
1300 NW Wall St.., Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to express my support for a text amendment to the County Code proposed by the
developers of Aspen Lakes Golf Course and its residential community. As you know, the
developers of this project are interested in proceeding with full destination resort designation
and expansion of the existing development and amenities. Specifically, TA-07-7 requests two
changes: 1) a "grandfather" provision regarding the minimum buffer distance from the
property line of a destination resort and the nearest road, and 2) an increase of the required
average lot size that is consistent with "cluster" housing development approved by the county
at Aspen Lakes since the early 1990s. Both proposed amendments seem reasonable, and have
historical precedence with other resort development in the region.
Destination resorts have played a very significant role in the region's economic development
success. These high amenity developments provide an opportunity to expose visitors and
potential future residents to the area with a qualityexperience. As has often been the case
over the past three decades of resort development in Deschutes County, many of these visitors
return to purchase second homes (sometimes in the resorts themselves). A good share of
these part time residents later decide to become full time residents and a portion of those
bring their businesses with them A key amenity of most destination resorts in Deschutes
County is golf, which is particularly targeted toward business owners and other high net worth
individuals. This importation of new residents with resources, talent, education, work
experience and contacts is the defining element that has fueled a healthy portion our economy,
business and job growth. Of those manufacturing and technology-based recruitment projects
that inquire with EDCO about relocation, more than 70% of the principals of those
companies say that they were fast tourists to the area. Many stayed or owned property at an
area destination resort.
The positive balance between property tax revenues and impact on local special districts that
resorts bring to local counties is certainly well known to you. For example, the Deschutes
County Sheriff has in the past testified at planning commission hearings in support of
destination resorts and the low impact they have on their operations versus revenues realized.
As I'm sure you are aware, destination resorts and the properties within them in both
Deschutes and now Crook counties are among the largest taxpayers in each area.
1W NW Greenwood Ave., Suite #102 ® Bend, OR 97701 M 541-388-3236 0 Fax 541-388-6705 0 1-800-342-4135
info@edcoinfo.com ® www.edcoinfo.com
Deschutes County Commission
August 28, 2008
Page 2 of 2
In recent years, some residents have questioned the need for more resorts. There probably is a
limit to the number of resorts that the area can successfully support, however this is a question
answered not by public policy, but by the market. The Cyrus family, developer of Aspen
Lakes, has made steady investments over the years in preparation to convert their
development into a complete destination resort. In light of these investments, I hope that you
will grant the text amendments that will enable Aspen Lakes a clear path to assemble the
extensive application materials for resort designation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important project. We look
forward to being involved in this and future stages of the process.
Sincerely,
RogerJ; :Lee
Director
Ire ~~~o ~L
f
I
~P :-2: ]0,831
60AR0 OF COMMISSIONERS J
AD,MI,i'ISIRATION
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Re: Proposed Destination Resort Amendments
Dear Sirs and Madam,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the county
code requirements affecting existing cluster developments, such as Aspen Lakes Golf
Course Estates .
We are property owners in the Aspen Lakes Estates rural cluster subdivision . We make
no comment here on the broad issue regarding the merits of additional destination resorts
in Deschutes County.
Our only concern on this specific proposed code amendment is that it not change the
desirable rural nature of our existing subdivision. This includes the required and
dedicated open spaces . These open spaces should not be allowed to be amended or
revised in any way as part of this code amendment . These open spaces and other
conditions placed by the County were , and are , relied upon by home purchasers to
preserve the desirable rural nature and living environment in subdivisions such as Aspen
Lakes Estates .
The code change proposed could lead to diminished property values by potentially
allowing revisions or removal of important property conditions which the County
previously required and upon which property owners have an expectation to be honored .
We appreciate your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Steve L. and Terri Loveland
17138 Caddis Court, Sisters, Oregon , 97759.
9/02/2008
RECEIVED
SEP 04 ?008
Deschutes County CDD
Peter Gutowsky
From: Dennis Luke
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:39 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: Vote NO on potential Aspen Lakes development
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Lussenhop [mailto:mlussenhop@bendbroadband.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Board
Subject: Vote NO on potential Aspen Lakes development
Dear Commissioners Baney, Daly and Luke:
As a resident of Deschutes County who lives near Camp Polk Road, I urge you to vote no on
the Aspen Lakes developers' plan to convert an existing golf course gated community to a
destination resort.
I understand that the preliminary resort plan would quintuple the number of housing units
in the existing subdivision with an additional 300 private home sites, 100 detached
central units, a 150 room hotel and several artificial lakes.
This project would impact the entire infrastructure of the area's water system. There is
only a finite amount of water in this aquifer (which recharges Whychus Creek), and the
effect of large volume groundwater pumping to existing residents wells is a real issue.
The single county road (Camp Polk Road) serving this proposed resort would need costly
improvements to its sharp curves, steep grade and the narrow bridge over Whychus Creek to
safely accommodate the traffic of a new residential/resort area at Aspen Lakes.
For these and for other ecological issues that would arise with such a development, please
vote no on Text Amendment 07 - 7 which would change county planning guidelines and allow
this development to proceed. The County Planning commission wisely voted to reject the
proposal.
Thank you.
Martha Lussenhop
69915 Meadow View Rd.
Sisters, OR 97759
1000 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204 • 503-497-1000 • fax 503-223-0073 • www.friends.org
friends Southern Oregon Office PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528.541-474-1155 fax 541-474-9389
of Oregon. Willamette Valley Office 189 Liberty Street NE, Suite 307A • Salem, OR 97301 503-371-7261 • fax 503-371-7596
Central Oregon Office • PO Box 242 • Bend, OR 97709 • 541-382-7557 • fax 541-317-9129
September 17, 2008
Deschutes County Commission
c/o Peter Gutowsky
Conununity Development Department
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
Re: TA-07-7 (Aspen Lakes Text Amendment)
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-
referenced amendment. We urge you to deny the proposed amendment for the reasons outlined
below.
1. Conversion to a destination resort violates applicable law (ORS 197.435-467, DCC 18.113),
confers unfair advantage on Applicant
The Applicant's proposal to change its cluster development into a destination resort would violate the
provisions of State law and County code requiring a destination resort to build 50 units of overnight
lodging before any residential lots are sold. These provisions are designed to ensure that destination
resorts promote tourism-related economic development and prevent destination resorts from
operating as "sagebrush subdivisions".
The requirement to construct a hotel or other overnight lodging prior to residential lot sales is a
method of using the market to ensure that the development will indeed be tourist-oriented. Investors
who are willing to underwrite construction of overnight lodging before residential lot sales begin
signal a belief that market demand for such overnight lodgings exists and that provision of tourist
accommodations is the core function of the development.
Here, the Applicant would like to add a hotel afterward to its cluster development in order to benefit
from advantageous provisions of destination resort law, while having avoided the obligation to
construct 50 units of overnight lodgings prior to lot sales that it would have incurred had the
Applicant applied for a destination resort at the outset.
The administrative and legislative history of destination resorts makes it clear that the proposed
conversion from a cluster development to a destination resort would be inconsistent with the purpose
and intent of destination resorts. Below is an excerpt from DLCD's 1995 Destination Resort
Handbook:
1000 Friends of Oregon
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment TA077
September 16, 2008
Page 2
"Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals seek to prevent urban sprawl and protect natural resource
lands. They do this by restricting or prohibiting subdivisions and other forms of housing
development outside cities and other developed areas. Major development must take a'goal
exception,' a state variance of sorts, to locate outside urban growth boundaries.
Initially, while the exceptions process provided for uses like destination resorts, it didn't do a
very good job. State law treated resorts like rural subdivisions or motels, making it difficult
for developers and counties to site resorts.
Developers said that the exceptions process blocked construction of new resorts. In 1982,
Governor Atiyeh's Land Use Task Force agreed with the developers. The Governor then asked
the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Economic
Development Commission to come up with a solution. They did. In 1984, LCDC adopted
amendments to Goal 8 to allow destination resorts."
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's Destination Resort Handbook.
A Guide to Statewide Planning Goal 8's Procedures and Requirements for Siting Destination
Resorts (1995).
The solution that LCDC and the Economic Development Commission came up with is articulated in a
joint "Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting" dated April 15, 1983. That 1983
report led in 1984 to LCDC adopting amendments to Goal 8, which provided for the siting of
destination resorts.
House Bill 3097, passed by the 1987 Legislative Assembly, 1987 Or. Laws Ch. 886, substantially
adopted and codified LCDC's amendments to Goal 8 (as ORS 197.435- 197.465, not including ORS
197.462).
One of the clearest findings and recommendations of the 1983 Joint Subcommittee Report reads as
follows:
"Destination resorts must provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure
that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities."'
The Joint Subcommittee Report specifically identified certain uses "not considered destination
resorts," including planned communities, rural subdivisions or planned developments, and hotels or
motels (while noting that hotels/motels could be part of a destination resort).
The fundamental concern that the destination resort provisions might be misused to allow residential
subdivisions is clearly recorded in the administrative history of the Goal 8 amendments and was again
clearly articulated in the legislative history of 1993 Or. Laws Ch. 590 (HB 2932) by Greg Wolf of the
Department of Land Conservation and Development, when he specifically requested that changes in
Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting, Joint Subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission and the
Land Conservation and Development Commission (April 15, 1983).
1000 Friends of Oregon
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment TA077
September 16, 2008
Page 3
the destination resort provisions remain consistent with the original intent, which was not to allow the
laws to become loopholes that would result in rural subdivisionsz 3
Again, the proposed conversion of a cluster development to a destination resort is not the type of
economic development that is used to justify siting of destination resorts in rural areas. As noted by
the 1983 Joint Subcommittee:
"Destination resorts that evolve into full time communities, cities or retirement centers will
not result in the desired economic benefits associated with tourism. In fact, a growing number
of full-time residents will create demands for government expenditures for schools and health
care facilities. A large resident population also demands development of a private
infrastructure to service the full-time community including a range of commercial and
professional services. These costs might offset the economic benefits created by continuing
tourist and visitor use of the remaining portion of the development. Also, such evolution
would be inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals which provide for residential
development within urban growth boundaries and on built and committed lands in rural areas.
No one has suggested to the subcommittee that there are inadequate lands in these areas to
provide for year-round residential development needs."
It is clear from both the administrative and legislative history that the Commission and the
Legislature did not intend to authorize destination resorts that are indistinguishable from rural
residential subdivisions with a golf course, with perhaps a hotel thrown in as an afterthought. In
short, although residential units for sale accompany most large destination resorts in Oregon,
destination resorts are intended for visitors - they are NOT intended to be residential communities or
residential planned unit developments.
Yet this is exactly what is sought by the Applicant in its proposed amendment. It seeks to allow
special dispensation to front-load its destination resort with residential development. Such a change
would be detrimental to the economic best interests of the county.
2 See e.g., Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Planning Goals to
Allow Destination Resorts (June 1984) at Appendix C- 7 (where LCDC noted that d]efining a'destination resort' is perplexing
because of the variety of resort development and because the differences between a resort and a well-planned residential or second-
home community are slight. The Commission is proposing a simple and narrow definition to assure that the developments which are
approved under this process do in fact meet recreational and visitor-oriented needs rather than result in residential development.");
Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to the Land Conservation and Development
Commission of 8/10/84 (sharing the commentators' concern that the proposed amendments did not place specific limits on residential.
development and noting that Charbonneau, a planned community, would meet most of the standards of the Goal but is solely a
residential development); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to Interested Persons
of 8/22/84 (recommending a ratio of overnight lodging units to residential units); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land
Conservation and Development, to Land Conservation and Development Commission of 10/5/84 (discussing how to assure that resort
developments do not become rural residential or commuter~village developments); Certificate and Order for Filing Administrative
Rules with the Secretary of State 10/19/84 (for which the finding of statewide need states in relevant part that that the proposed
amendment will appropriately limit resort development consistent with the statewide planning goals by requiring, among others,
extensive visitor-oriented accommodations).
3 Minutes, Subcommittee on Environment and Energy, House Committee on Natural Resources, March 8, 1993.
1000 Friends of Oregon
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment TA077
September 16, 2008
Page 4
By allowing the Applicant to add a hotel to a cluster development, approval of the proposed
amendment would confer an unfair advantage to the Applicant over hotel owners in the nearby city of
Sisters. The Applicant seeks permission to build a hotel on rural farmland for which it paid farmland
prices. Meanwhile hotel owners or would-be hotel owners in Sisters are constrained by applicable
law to pay the price of land zoned for hotels under the city's comprehensive plan.
2. The Sisters/Cloverdale area where Aspen Lakes is located meets the definition of a "high
value crop area" as defined by ORS 197.435. Pursuant to ORS 197.455 a county "may
not allow" a destination resort at Aspen Lakes, whether or not the proposed amendment is
approved.
a) Statutory Construction of ORS 197.455(1): "The County May Not Allow"
Below is the current text of the relevant portion of ORS 197.455:
ORS 197.455 Siting of destination resorts; sites from which destination resort excluded.
(1) A destination resort must be sited on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort siting
by the affected county. The county may not allow destination resorts approved pursuant to
ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following areas:..
(b)(B) On a site within three miles of a high value crop area...
This language was adopted in 2003, as part of Oregon Senate Bill 911. Here is an excerpt from the
adopted bill, showing the previous language (in brackets and italics) and the replacement language (in
bold face type):
"Chapter 812 Oregon Laws 2003
AN ACT, SB 911
Relating to destination resorts; amending ORS 197.435, 197.445 and 197.455.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: ETC....
....SECTION 3. ORS 197.455 is amended to read:
197.455. (1) A destination resort [shall] must be sited on lands mapped as
eligible for destination resort siting by the affected county. [A map adopted by a] The
county [shall] may not allow destination resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to
197.467 to be sited in any of the following areas:
(a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population
of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff
and management of the resort.
(b)(A) On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland
identified and mapped by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service,
or its [successor] predecessor agency.
1000 Friends of Oregon
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment TA077
September 16, 2008
Page 5
(B) On a site within three miles of a high value crop area unless the resort
complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the resort [shall]
may not be closer to a high value crop area than one-half mile for each 25 units of
overnight lodging or fraction thereof."
This language change is available for your review at the official website of the Oregon state
legislature at the following address: http://w w.leg.state.or.us/03orlaws/sess0800.dir/0812ses.htm
Though destination resort developers would like to interpret the prohibitions in ORS 197.455(1) a-e,
as areas that are to be excluded from the county's eligible lands map, the above statutory history
clearly shows that the legislature specifically removed that language in 2003.
Since 2003, not only has the list of prohibited sites in ORS 197.455(1)a-e been a list of areas that a
county's map may not allow to be eligible for destination resort siting. But also it has been a list of
the areas and types of areas in the state of Oregon in which a county "may not allow destination
resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited". (emphasis provided).
Since Aspen Lakes is within a high value crop area as explained below, an eventual application for a
destination resort at Aspen Lakes pursuant to the proposed amendment would have to be denied by
the County.
b) Cloverdale irrigated cropland including Aspen Lakes meets the definition of a high value
crop area.
Based on the data in scientific studies conducted by Oregon State University at the Central Oregon
Agricultural Research Station, and based on current commodity prices as reported by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the County could not allow a destination resort to be sited
at Aspen Lakes, because the property is within 3 miles of a high value crop area.
Such an approval would be contrary to ORS 197.435 and ORS 197.455. Thousands of irrigated
acres in Cloverdale meet the definition for a high value crop area.
Attachment 1)
OSU, 1977. Principles ofAlfalfa Production in Central Oregon. OSU Special report
483. 17 pp. It says, page 1: "Studies done at the Central Oregon Experiment Station,
Redmond, have clearly shown that more than 8 tons of hay per acre can be produced."
Attachment 2)
USDA, March 2008. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Livestock and Hay
Division, Hay Monthly Quotations for March 2008. Forage prices including,
specifically, Deschutes County, Oregon.
http://www.ams.usda gov/mnreports/lsmml rg_3l3 pdf
Showing Orchard grass at $185-200 per ton; Alfalfa $170-180 per ton.
1000 Friends of Oregon
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment TA077
September 16, 2008
Page 6
Based on OSU documented Central Oregon Alfalfa yields and current prices for alfalfa hay, the
March 2008 crop value of Cloverdale orchard grass and alfalfa was:
Orchard Grass $1600 per acre
Alfalfa $1440 per acre
The irrigated lands of Cloverdale are not only capable of growing orchard grass and alfalfa, but many
of them are planted to these and similar crops. The definition of a high value crop as defined by ORS
197.435, is, "capable of producing crops or products with a. minimum gross value of $1, 000 per acre
per year."
The following classified advertisements appear in today's (September 16, 2008) edition of the Bend
Bulletin newspaper (Bend Bulletin, 9/16/2008, Classified, Farm Market).
• Orchard Grass Alfalfa Mix Hay, 1 st & 2nd Cuttings, $200/ton, 3rd cutting avail. soon. Call
541-280-7378 or 541-382-5315.
• Orchard Grass Alfalfa mix hay, 1 st cutting, $210 ton, 2nd cutting, $225 ton, grass, $210 ton,
Triticale $165 ton, delivery avail, 541-891-4087.
Orchard grass and alfalfa hay are crops commonly grown in Deschutes County (see Attachments 1-
3). In today's Bend Bulletin newspaper, orchard grass/alfalfa mix is offered for sale for as much as
$225/ton. Even if a yield for orchard grass/alfalfa hay grown in the Cloverdale area is conservatively
estimated at 5 tons per acre, the yield would be well in excess of the definition of a high value crop, at
(5 tons/acre)*($225/ton) =$1125/acre.
We note that it is the capability of the high value crop area lands to produce these crops that is
relevant, as established in Peterson et al v. Crook County, 2005, and Boyer v. Baker County, 35 Or
LUBA 223 (1998).
Conclusion
We urge you to deny the proposed text amendment. Conversion of a cluster development to a
destination resort would allow the Applicant to circumvent provisions of State law and County code
designed to ensure that destination resorts provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations and are
not built as or do not evolve into full time residential communities. Whether or not the proposed text
amendment is approved, the County could not approve Aspen Lakes as a destination resort without
violation of ORS 197.455.
Thank you for your attention to these views. Please incorporate this testimony into the official record
for this proceeding.
Best regards,
Carol Macbeth
Central Oregon Advocate
1000 Friends of Oregon
1000 Friends of Oregon
Aspen Lakes Text Amendment TA077
September 16, 2008
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
1) OSU, 1977. Principles of Alfalfa Production in Central Oregon. OSU Special report 483. 17 pp.
2) USDA, March 2008. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Livestock and Hay Division, Hay
Monthly Quotations for March 2008. Market: Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Wasco Counties Oregon.
3). OSU, 1976. "Grass Varieties for Central Oregon". OSU Special report 468. 9 pp.
'J
(g,~O MA ]977
LISkA
REGON ST L
UNIVERSITY ; ~Principles of
Alfalfa Production
in Central Oregon
Special Report 483
April 1977
Agricultural Experiment Station
Oregon State University, Corvallis
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 1
ESTABLISHING THE STAND. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 1
Soil Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 1
Soil Testing. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 1
Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 1
Lime. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Seedbed Preparation . . . . . . . . . .
4
Inoculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 4
Seeding .Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 6
Seeding Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .6
Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 6
Seeding Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 6
Weed Control . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 6
MANAGING THE STAND. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 7
Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 7
Fertilizing Established Stands .
. . . . . . . . 10
Cutting Time . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 10
Spring Mangement . . . .
. . . . . . . . 12
Fall Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 12
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 14
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 15
PRINCIPLES OF ALFALFA PRODUCTION IN CENTRAL OREGON
W. M. Murphy and M. J. Johnson*
INTRODUCTION
Alfalfa hay yields in Central Oregon are only about one-half of their
potential level. Annual yields of 4 to 5 tons per acre have been considered
to be very good, but if the best known establishment and management practices
are conscientiously applied,much higher yields are possible. Studies done
at the Central Oregon Experiment Station, Redmond have clearly shown that
more than 8 tons of hay per acre can be produced (11). This report discusses
aspects of soil conditions, seed inoculation, seeding, weed control, irrigation,
cutting time, and spring and fall management that require attention to increase
production.
ESTABLISHING THE STAND
Optimum alfalfa production begins with a well-established stand. Poor
establishment practices result in poor stands, but cost about the same as
if the job had been done right. Long-lived, high-yielding stands can be
established successfully by considering several aspects of establishment and
following proven procedures.
Soil Conditions
Soil Testing
Determine soil fertility levels and fertilizer and lime needs with soil
tests. Have soils tested before seeding and at regular intervals during the
life of the stand. Follow soil test recommendations to maintain high soil
fertility levels for optimum forage production. The cost of a soil test is
insignificant in comparison to the loss in yield that occurs when soil
nutrient levels are too low.
Fertilizers
Alfalfa varieties with high yielding capacity reach their full potential.
only when growing on fertile soils. Fertilizer applied to alfalfa can return
as much on investment as cultivated crops do. When alfalfa is harvested,
nutrients are removed from the soil in the amounts shown in Table .1. Few soils
can supply large amounts of required nutrients for very long without fertilizer
applications. If maintenance fertilizers are not applied, sooner or later
yields decrease, and run-down alfalfa stands full of grass and weeds result.
*Research Agronomist and Superintendent, respectively, Central Oregon
Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Redmond, Oregon 97756.
Table 1. Plant nutrients removed from soils in 1 ton of alfalfa hay.
Plant nutrient N P K Ca Mg
Removal, lb/acre 50 5 50 35
Adapted from Rhykerd, C. L., and C. J. Overdahl (15).
Nitrogen (N) is one of the nutrients used in greatest amounts by alfalfa.
It is extremely important for both forage quality and yield. It forms a major
part of proteins and chlorophyll, and is essential for photosynthesis, growth,
and reproduction. Alfalfa normally obtains most of its nitrogen from air
through the symbiotic relationship with rhizobia (nitrogen-fixing bacteria)
that live in nodules on the plant roots. One of the main advantages of
growing alfalfa is that nitrogen fertilizer should not have to be applied. If
establishment and management practices are faulty, plants and rhizobia may be
stressed by adverse soil and moisture conditions, and nitrogen fixation will
decrease or stop completely. Under these circumstances, part or all of required
nitrogen must be supplied with fertilizer.
Studies at the Central Oregon Experiment Station have shown that the
practice of routinely applying nitrogen fertilizer when seeding alfalfa or on,
established stands interferes with normal nodulation of the plants. Table 2
shows that 50 pounds of nitrogen applied at seeding decreased already low alfalfa
nodulation by 50 percent or more. Applied nitrogen replaces rather than
supplements, the nitrogen that normally would be fixed from the air free of
charge (27).
Table 2. Effect of nitrogen (N) fertilizer on nodulation of alfalfa seedlings
grown on Deschutes sandy loam at Redmond, 1976.
Alfalfa Rate of N fertilizer
variety None- 50 lb/acre
nodulated plants---
Vernal 42 14
Anchor 48 24
Seeds were inoculated with Northrup King & Co. Noculator peat inoculant in a
25% sugar slurry immediately before planting. Plants were 5 weeks old when
examined for nodules.
Plants require phosphorus (P) in photosynthesis, energy transfer, and in
production and breakdown of carbohydrates. It isa key element in growth and cell
division, and concentrates in young actively growing tissues. Since these
tissues are the most palatable and nutritious, highest quality forage only
results when phosphorus supply is adequate. Phosphorus is especially critical
for normal root development and seedling establishment (2,23).
Phosphorus is one of the nutrients most generally deficient in soils. A soil
test value of 15 ppm phosphorus is considered to be satisfactory for optimum
alfalfa growth in Central Oregon. In a 1974 soil-test survey of 42 Central
Oregon alfalfa fields, only 19 had levels of 15 ppm or more. Eight ranged
from 11 to 14 ppm, and 15 ranged from 5 to 10 ppm. This indicated that
production on 55 percent of the alfalfa fields in the area could be increased
with phosphorus fertilization (5,12).
Potassium (K) is essential for many plant processes and promotes development
of winter hardiness. If sufficient potassium is not available in the soil,
alfalfa stands rapidly thin out and are invaded by grasses and weeds. A soil
test value of 150 ppm potassium is considered to be adequate for optimum alfalfa
growth in Central Oregon. In a 1974 soil-test survey of 42 Central Oregon
alfalfa fields, 12 percent had potassium levels lower than 150 ppm (17).
Almost all soils in the area require annual sulfur applications. Although
only 5 pounds of sulfur are needed to produce 1 ton of alfalfa hay, sulfur (S)
leaches from Central Oregon soils. Consequently, 50 to 100 pounds of sulfur
per acre should be applied each year, depending on soil texture; sandy soils
require larger amounts than loam soils. Apply sulfur in fall, spring, or
early to midsummer, preferably in two 50-50 split applications to minimize
leaching losses. Soils having pH levels of 7.5 or less should receive sulfur
as gypsum or as contained in ordinary superphosphate, so that soil pH is not
lowered as would happen if elemental sulfur were applied. Apply sulfur in the
elemental form on soils with pH level:s higher than 7.5.
Lime
Lime corrects soil acidity and supplies calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg).
It also affects the availability of almost all essential nutrients, promotes
growth of microorganisms, decreases the'solubility of toxic elements (aluminum
and manganese), and increases the efficiency of applied fertilizers (7,8,9,15).
Alfalfa is one of the most sensitive legumes to acid soil conditions.
This is because the kind of rhizobia that nodulates alfalfa is extremely sensi-
tive to soil pH level. Alfalfa plants can grow well under moderately acid
conditions if they are supplied with nitrogen fertilizer. Nodulation and
nitrogen fixation by rhizobia, however, are greatly reduced at soil pH levels
below 6.0. A study done by the Central Oregon Experiment Station showed that
alfalfa nodulation and yield increased greatly as a result of liming a moder-
ately acid soil of pH 5.5. Table 3 shows that highest percentages of nodulation
were observed at pH levels of 6.4 to 7.3. Highest yields resulted at pH levels
of 6.8 to 7.3.
Apply rates of lime recommended by soil tests. Since lime reacts slowly
in soils, apply it at least 6 months before seeding. Lime also can be top-
dressed on alfalfa at any time, but it is best to mix it thoroughly with soils
in the rooting zone. One of the best methods of applying lime is to broadcast
one-half of the required amount on the soil surface before plowing. The
remaining lime is applied after plowing and is disced into the soil.
3
Table 3. Effects of liming a Deschutes sandy loam soil on Thor alfalfa
nodulation and yield at Cloverdale, 1976.
Soil pH, nodulation,
and yield
0
1
Lime,
2
ton/acre
4
6
8
Soil ph
5.5
6.0
6.4
6.7
6.8
7.3
% nodulated plants
14
58
86
68
77
80
Dry forage yield, T/acre
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.1
Lime was applied in December--1-9-7-5-.-
ecember 197. Alfalfa was seeded in June 1976.
Seeds were inoculated with Nitragin Co. peat inoculant in a 25% sugar
slurry immediately before planting. Plants were 5 weeks old when examined
for nodules. Yield is from one harvest made in August 1976.
Seedbed Preparation
Seedbeds should be moist and firm, with some looseness at the surface
to cover seeds. Compact seedbeds before and after seeding; a firm seedbed
maintains soil moisture for seedling roots. Sandy soils especially should
be firm because they lose moisture rapidly if they are loose. If a soil
crust forms over seeds, seedlings have firm soil to push against, and can
break through the crust; seedlings emerging from loose soil under a crust may
actually push themselves deeper into the soil. Irrigating before seeding
helps to firm seedbeds and makes inoculation more effective (26).
Inoculation
As a legume, alfalfa is able to use or "fix" nitrogen from the air.
Enough nitrogen may be fixed for its own growth and for other plants growing
with it or following in rotation. This nitrogen would otherwise have to be
applied as fertilizer.
Soon after alfalfa begins growing, bacteria called rhizobia enter tiny
root hairs of the plants. The rhizobia multiply in large numbers and form
growths called nodules on the roots. A partnership or symbiosis is established
in which plant and rhizobia live together to their mutual advantage. Plants
provide food and protection for the rhizobia, which fix atmospheric nitrogen
and make it available to plants. The amount of nitrogen fixed depends on
alfalfa variety,effectiveness of the rhizobia, and soil moisture and fertility
conditions (10).
Failure to achieve effective nodulation is a major problem in establishing
and maintaining productive alfalfa stands in Central Oregon. Without effective
nodules, plants suffer from nitrogen deficiency, yields decrease, and the
stand rapidly degenerates. Therefore,it is absolutely essential to inoculate
seed with a vigorous and effective strain of rhizobia to nodulate the plants
so that nitrogen fixation occurs at high rates.
4
Seed either can be preinoculated before it is sold or can be inoculated
on the farm just before planting. Preinoculated seed must be fresh and stored
under cool conditions from time of manufacture until planting. Preinoculated
seed that is not fresh or that has been exposed to warm temperatures may
carry low numbers of live rhizobia and may be worthless as far as nodulation
is concerned. If seed will be inoculated on the farm do not buy preinoculated
seed, because preinoculation increases the price of the seed.
Follow these steps to successful nodulation:
1. Inoculants are cultures of live rhizobia and must be treated as
perishable living things that die rapidly when exposed to warm
temperatures. Use only fresh inoculants that have been kept under
refrigeration until planting time. If the inoculant has not been
stored under refrigeration where it is sold, do not buy it. Insist
that managers of businesses selling inoculants refuse delivery of
inoculants if they have not been maintained under refrigeration from
time of manufacture until delivery for sale.
Do not use inoculants after the expiration date of the package. Suffi-
cient numbers of live rhizobia are present in packages for about 4
months from time of packaging if kept under refrigeration, and for
only 3 to 4 weeks without refrigeration.
2. In spite of directions usually found on inoculant packages, dry
application of inoculant does not work. Only about 20 percent of
the dry material sticks to.seeds, and survival of rhizobia on seeds
decreases when applied dry. Apply inoculants either as Pelinoc or
in a 25 percent sugar slurry. The Pelinoc system (developed by The
Nitragin Company, 3101 W. Custer Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53209) applies
large numbers of rhizobia per seed in an adhesive compound that
provides nutrients and prevents drying of the rhizobia to insure
their maximum survival. Apply it according to instructions furnished
with the Pelinoc materials.
Use of a sugar slurry also increases survival of rhizobia on seeds.
Suspend the inoculant in about a quart of 25 percent sugar solution
(one cup of sugar per quart of water) for each 100 pounds of seed.
Use two or three times the amount of inoculant specified on the
package; it is not possible to over-inoculate. Just before planting,
mix the slurry and seed together thoroughly, before placing it in the
seeder box. Add the slurry to the seed slowly so it does not get too
wet. If the seed becomes too moist for planting, add small amounts
of finely ground limestone to soak up the excess moisture. With this
method of inoculation, it is best to recalibrate the seeder to be
certain the desired amount of seed is being sown.
3. Inoculate in the shade--never in direct sunlight--because ultraviolet
rays in sunlight kill rhizobia.
4. Plant the seeds as soon as possible after inoculation (3,4,6,16,25).
5
Seeding Rate
Twelve to 15 pounds of seed per acre are sufficient to obtain, a dense
stand. Use only good seed, having high percentages of purity and germination
(2,19,22,28).
Seeding Depth
Alfalfa is best sown 4 to , inch deep on heavy soils and , to 1 inch deep
on sandy soils. Sowing deeper than 1 inch is fatal to seed as small as alfalfa
unless covered by loose soil. Even when seedlings emerge from deeper planting,
they are so weakened that survival decreases. Sometimes certain conditions,
such as in sandy soils, require that seed be sown deeper, but the hazard is
always greater. Compact the seedbed before and after seeding, expecially
on sandy soils (26).
Irrigation
Dry soil conditions kill more alfalfa seedlings than any other cause.
Alfalfa seeds are small and must be sown near the soil surface, which may dry
out rapidly. Soil moisture may be sufficient to germinate seeds, but seedlings
may die if the soil surface dries before they root enough to become established.
Irrigate as frequently as necessary to keep the soil moist during establishment
(13,21).
Seeding Time
The best times for seeding alfalfa in Central Oregon are in spring and
late summer. Spring seedings made during the first week of June usually are
not damaged by late spring frosts and become established well enough. to survive
the high temperatures of July and August. Late summer seedings made before
August 15 usually become established well enough to resist heaving by frost
in the following fall and winter.
Weed Control
Spring seedings must be made either with a herbicide or a companion crop
to control weeds. EPTC (Eptam) herbicide provides good control of annual grass
and broadleaf weeds. Apply it according to instructions on the container label
at rates of 2 pounds per acre on light sandy soils and 3 pounds per acre on
heavier soils (1). Spring seedings made with a herbicide may be harvested in
late summer; yields usually range between 1 and 2 tons of hay per acre. If
an oat companion crop is used, seed only about 50 pounds of oats per acre and
remove the oats as soon as possible as oat hay. If companion crops are seeded
too thickly, fertilized heavily with nitrogen, or allowed to remain on the field
too long, they may compete so severly with alfalfa seedlings for water, nutrients,
light, and space that the stand would be reduced.
Late summer seedings usually are not bothered by annual weeds, because
weather and light conditions at this time discourage their growth. Seedings
may be made in the stubble of oat-hay crops; the production and income during
the alfalfa seeding year resulting from this method may be considerably more
6
than that obtained by spring seeding. Table 4 presents first-year results of
a study on the effects of seeding time and method on forage production during
the alfalfa seeding year at the Central Oregon Experiment Station. Although
total forage yields were similar from alfalfa sown in spring with a companion
crop or with herbicide, a denser stand formed with the herbicide treatment.
Alfalfa sown in late summer in the stubble of an oat-hay crop became well
established by the end of the season. The amount of forage produced by this
method, however, was about twice that produced using a companion crop or
herbicide. Consequently, income during the establishment year from the sale
of hay produced by this method, would be almost double that from spring
seedings.
Table 4. Effects of alfalfa seeding time and method on forage production
during the alfalfa seeding year at Redmond, 1976
Vari
Spring seeding with
Oat companion crop EE tam herbicide
Alfalfa Oat hay Total Alfalfa
Late summer seeding
in oat-hay stubble
eid, tons/acre------------------
-----------------dry forage
Vernal alfalfa 0.5* 1.8 -2.4
Anchor alfalfa 0.6 1.7 2.3
Park oats
4.3**
*Totals of two harvests made August 10 and September 21; no nitrogen fertilizer
applied; alfalfa and Park oats seeded on June 3.
"Harvested July 20'; oats seeded at 90 pounds per acre on April 16; 100 pounds
of nitrogen applied per acre; treated with 2, 4-D herbicide to control broadleaf
weeds; alfalfa seeded in oat-hay stubble on August 4.
MANAGING THE STAND
Managing alfalfa for maximum production and persistence in Central Oregon
is more difficult than in other northern areas of the United States. Dry, hot
summer conditions require careful and correct irrigation practices. Cold
winters, without continual snow cover and with freezing and thawing conditions,
make fall management especially critical. Soils vary widely in depth, drain-.
age, texture, water-holding capacity, and fertility; this makes it very
difficult to achieve and maintain correct soil conditions for alfalfa. If
the best known management practices are carefully followed, however, environ-
mental effects can be minimized.
Irrigation
A major problem of alfalfa management in Central Oregon is achieving
proper irrigation. Much of the alfalfa grown in the area is not irrigated
properly. On a given summer day many fields or parts of fields can be found
in which alfalfa plants are at or near the wilting points. After each
1.8
2.4
7
cutting, bales of hay are-left on fields for excessive lengths of time,
during which no irrigation can be applied. This practice not only slows
plant regrowth, but also kills plants by smothering and lack of sunlight
beneath the bales. Plants require adequate moisture for normal growth;
water deficiency for any length of time reduces yield and promotes early
maturity. Central Oregon soils generally are shallow and, have low water-
holding capacities; moisture conditions in such soils change rapidly.
Consequently, irrigations should be made when available mositure reaches
50 percent of the soil's water-holding capacity (18).
If soil water-storage capacity and effective rooting depth of the plants
are known, pan evaporation rates obtained at the Central Oregon Experiment
Station (Figure 1) can be used to predict irrigation needs. Available water-
storage capacities for major soils in Central Oregon are shown in Table 7.
Effective rooting depth of alfalfa varies with soil depth, but alfalfa
obtains most of its moisture from the top 2 feet of soil.
Table 7. Available water-storage capacities of major soils in Central
Oregon.
Avg. available
water-storage
Soil type capacity Location, county
in/ft
Agency sandy loam
2.2
Crook, Deschutes,
Jefferson
Agency loam
2.2
Crook, Deschutes,
Jefferson
Deschutes loamy sand
1.5
Crook, Deschutes
Deschutes sandy loam
1.7
Crook, Deschutes
Lamonta loam
1.7
Crook, Deschutes,
Jefferson
Madras sandy loam
2.2
Deschutes, Jefferson
Madras loam
2.3
Deschutes, Jefferson
Metolius sandy loam
2.4
Crook, Deschutes,
Jefferson
Ochoco sandy loam
2.4
Crook
Prineville sandy loam
1.6
Crook
Willowdale loam
2.9
Jefferson, Wasco
Adapted from Simonson, G. H., and M. N. Shearer 18
As an example of how to calculate irrigation needs, a Deschutes loamy
sand stores 1.5 inches of water in each foot of soil profile. If the soil
is 2 feet deep, the most it can hold is 3 inches of water. In a shallow,
light-textured soil such as this, it is necessary to irrigate when soil
moisture reaches 50 percent of field capacity, or 1.5 inches of available
water. The pan evaporation rate between July 22 to 31 is about 0.31 inches
of water per day. At this rate, evapotranspiration would remove 50 percent
of the water from the profile in 5 days. Therefore, the maximum interval
between irrigation sets would be 5 days--as long as the pan evaporation rate
remained at 0.31 inches per day. With longer intervals between sets, the
plants would be under moisture stress after 5 days, and yields would be reduced.
Each irrigation set should apply 1.5 inches of water to fill the soil up to
its water-storage capacity.
8
-v
c
O
E
I E ZZ
~
~
W
Iz-sl
o
L- I
N
0 `r Z Z
~
I Z- S I
W
~
E
~ I-8
a
•
n
I
.
W
Is-zz
0
Iz-51
C)
~I->3
b
L- I
c
Iz
~I
_
~I 8
j
o
4)
L- I
L
0C-zZ
0
•
Iz sl
z
r
L- I
au
I ~ zz
Q
Iz-sl Q
r
L- 1 o
n
)G-GG
Iz-si
cr- fu
e i- 8
L- I
a~
i
LL-
9
11 U) N Ln o Ln O
m N - - O O
O O O O O
\}3l`VM 30 S3HDN1
From Figure 1 it is clear that intervals between irrigation sets should
vary as the pan evaporation rates change during the growing season. It
should be noted that pan evaporation rates are closely related to water loss
from complete crop cover. Obviously, water loss is less from a developing
crop such as in early spring or after alfalfa has been cut. Consequently,
the pan evaporation values used to schedule irrigations during such periods
of growth should be adjusted downward by using an estimated factor of 0.85.
For example, the pan evaporation rate for June 1 to 7 is 0.24 inches per day.
Since the alfalfa crop is developing during this period, the actual water loss
would be less than that from a complete crop cover. The adjusted pan evaporation
rate for this growth period would be 0.85 x 0.24 = 0.20 inches per day. At
this rate, the Deschutes loamy sand soil used in the example above, would
lose 50 percent of its available water in 7.5 days (1.5/0.20= 7.5). Irrigations
during this growth period would be scheduled every 7.5 days and would apply
1.5 inches of water per irrigations set (8).
Be careful to apply only the amount of water that a soil can hold. Not
only is it inefficient to over-irrigate, but it harms alfalfa growth (Figure 2)
and leaches plant nutrients from the soil. A common practice is to use long
sprinkler irrigation sets of 12 to 24 hours and long intervals of 10 to 12
days between sets; depending on the soil, this can severly damage alfalfa.
During and shortly after irrigation, the soil may reach the saturation point.
By the time of the next irrigation, available soil moisture may be depleted
to the wilting point. Any time wilting or saturation points are reached, hay
quality and yield decrease (14).
Irrigate alfalfa fields to their water-holding capacities in the fall,
so the plants have enough moisture to live on over winter.
Fertilizing Established Stands
Have soil tested periodically during the life of stands to maintain soil
fertility at optimum levels for maximum yields. Topdress annually with
sulfur, phosphorus, and potassium as needed. Oregon State University publishes
Fertilizer Guides that are revised as research refines information. Guides
are available at county Extension offices for use in determining maintenance
fertilizer needs.
Cutting Time
An understanding of the trend of available carbohydrate root reserves
in alfalfa is essential for its correct cutting management. Plants use
reserves to produce new growth and for energy for many life processes.
Storage and use of reserves follows a cyclical pattern. When growth begins
in spring or after the plant has been cut or grazed, root reserves are used
to produce new top growth. Reserves continue to be drawn upon until the
plant has produced about 8 inches of top growth. Enough carbohydrates are
then formed by photosynthesis so that reserves begin to be replenished.
Maximum storage of carbohydrates in the roots is reached at about the full
bloom stage.
10
Z
O
Q
Q
d-
m
c
0
N
S-
N
a~
a
0
4-
d-)
CL
ro
v
d
H1MO'dO 1Nd1d
11
c
GJ
+1
c
Z o
W U
F-- s-
Z d)
0V 3
0.' r
w r
C
O
3
4
S-
o)
to
4-
r
b
4-
r
(C1
4-
O
C
O
•r
r
v
L
a~
s
N
N
L
When alfalfa is cut at full bloom regrowth is rapid and productivity
and persistence of plants are more easily maintained. Cutting at full
bloom permits plants to recover from effects of stress due to over-wintering,
improper irrigation, or disease.
Although delaying cutting until full bloom is best for plants, the
resulting hay has lower quality than that from earlier cutting. If winter
hardy, bacterial wilt-resistant varieties are used, it is possible to cut
early for better hay quality without reducing productivity and persistence
of the stand. The 10 percent bloom or first-flower stage is the optimum time
to cut alfalfa for highest yields of nutrients, protein and minerals (Figure 3).
Even though root reserves are not at a maximum level, they are high enough so that
plants are not damaged.
Cutting according to plant maturity takes into account differences due
to varieties, locations, and years. In this sense, it is more satisfactory
than cutting according to calendar date or time interval. Growth of new
crown shoots also should be considered in deciding when to cut. In Central
Oregon, frosts can occur at any time that would stop the flowering process
and eliminate it as an indicator of when to cut. If crown shoots begin to
elongate to the point where they would be cut off if cutting were to be
delayed further, the stand should be harvested. No matter when a cut is made,
the hay should be removed from the field as soon as possible and irrigation
should begin (Figure 3).
Spring Management
Early spring management is very important in maintaining productivity
and persistence, especially if the stand has been damaged during the winter.
Stands may be injured during winter when warm periods are followed by below
freezing temperatures. If an injured stand is cut too early in spring, yields
of subsequent harvests will be reduced and the stand will rapidly degenerate.
Disease-resistant varieties usually recover from winter injury if the first
cut is delayed until full bloom. Subsequent cuts may be made at 10 percent
bloom. If the stand has not been damaged during the winter, all cuts should
be made at 10 percent bloom, unless crown shoots elongate excessively before
that time. Injured stands that must be cut at first flower every cutting to
meet hay quality requirements, probably will need to be reseeded every 5 years.
Fall Management
Four to 6 weeks before the first killing frost of autumn is a critical
period in the alfalfa management; alfalfa should not be cut during this time.
Eight to 10 inches of top growth are needed during the entire period to produce
enough carbohydrates for storage in crowns and roots. Stored reserves are
used to develop cold resistance, to live on during the winter dormant period,
and to begin regrowth in spring; about 50 percent of the stored reserves are
used during the winter. If alfalfa begins the winter with low levels of
reserves, winter survival decreases and the number of crown buds and rhizomes
that produce spring regrowth declines.
12
A
LiJ C)
Lil
0 Lo
m
O
LL- CO
2
o 09
sin
Q
Li
O
V)
LLJ
G m
Li o
co
Ef Z)
S_
v
,z
•r
cr-
C
E
O
4-
-a
a)
a
RS
Q
•r
7
f~
E
4-
O
in
Ql
rt3
4J
N
C
N
L
N
4-
4-
4-3
m
m
4-
r
tG
4-
C
•r
S-
N
•r
b
4J N
O
S_
C. 4->
•r
4- E
O L/)
in N
"p r
- rd
N Q
I
U 1-
UZ
O V)-LLJ
i
y w
S.
rn~
13
O O O O
O O O O
O `r1 O U~
N `
32i OV/ 9 -1
The first killing frost usually occurs in Central Oregon about September 15.
Cutting after the first killing frost is not as hazardous as cutting before it;
reserves are usually at a high level by this time. If a stand is cut in the
fall, a tall stubble should be left to catch and hold snow for insulation
during the winter. Continual grazing by cattle or sheep during fall and
winter is not advisable (19,20).
SUMMARY
Central Oregon alfalfa yields are only about 50 percent of their potential
level. This is due mainly to inadequate establishment and management practices.
Improving these practices could double hay yields. This report discusses the
following production aspects that require attention to increase yields:
Soil Conditions. Have soils tested before seeding alfalfa and throughout
the life of the stand. Follow fertilizer and lime recommendations.
Seedbeds should be moist and firm, with some looseness at the surface for
seed coverage. Optimum seed coverage ranges from 4 to 2 inch on heavy soils
and 2 to 1 inch on sandy soils. Compact soils before and after seeding.
Inoculation. It is absolutely essential to inoculate alfalfa seed with a
fresh inoculant that has been refrigerated until planting time. This increases
the chances that plants will be nodulated with an effective strain of rhizobia
that will fix nitrogen at high rates.
Seeding Rate. Use 12 to 15 pounds per acre of good seed, having high percentages
of purity and germination.
Seeding Time.and Weed Control. Plant either during the first week of June
with an herbicide, or companion crop, or in late summer before August 15 in
the stubble of an oat-hay crop.
Irrigation. A major problem in establishing and managing alfalfa in Central
Oregon is achieving proper irrigation. If irrigations are applied according
to crop needs and soil water-holding capacities, the problem may be minimized.
If irrigations are applied according to convenient time schedules, the problem
will continue.
Cutting Time. Usually alfalfa should be cut at 10 percent bloom.
Spring Management. Delay first harvest of the season until full bloom if
stands have been injured during the preceeding winter.
Fall Management. Do not cut alfalfa during the 4- to 6-week period before
the first killing frost of autumn.
14
LITERATURE CITED
1. Appleby, A., and D. Rydrych. 1975. Selective control of weeds in
field crops. D. 48. In H. M. Hepworth (ed.) Oregon Weed
Control Handbook. Extension Service, Oregon State University
Corvallis.
2. Baylor, J. E. 1974. Satisfying the nutritional requirements of grass-
legume mixtures. p. 171-188. In D. A. Mays (ed.) Forage fertilization.
Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
3. Burton, J. C. 1972. Nodulation and symbiotic nitrogen fixation.
In C. H. Hanson (ed.) Alfalfa Science and Technology. Agronomy
1.5:299-246. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
4. Burton, J. C. 1976. Methods of inoculating seeds and their effect on
survival of rhizobia. p. 175-189. In P. S. Nutman (ed.) Symbiotic
nitrogen fixation in plants. International Biological Programme 7,
Cambridge Univ. Press.
5. Gardner, E. H., N. R. Goetze, G. Gross, E. N. Hoffman, T. L. Jackson.,
M. J. Johnson, D. P. Moore, W. S. McGuire, and V. Pumphrey. 1969.
Fertilizer guide for alfalfa. Extension Service Fertilizer Guide.
Sheet 20., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
6. Goetze, N. R., and H. Youngberg. 1972. Growing alfalfa in Western.
Oregon. Extension Circular 806. Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon.
7. Griffith, W. K. 1974. Satisfying the nutritional requirements of
established legumes. p. 147-167. In D. A. Mays (ed.) Forage fertilization.
Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
8. Hagan, R. M., and H. R. Haise. 1967. Soil, plant, and evaporative
measurements as criteria for scheduling irrigation. In R. M. Hagan,
H. R. Haise, and W. W. Edminster (eds.) Irrigation of agricultural
lands. Agronomy 11:577-597. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
9. Dresge, B. B. 1974. Effect of fertilization on winterhardiness of
forages. p. 437-451. In D. A. Mays (ed.) Forage fertilization. Am.
Soc. Agron., Madison,
10. Hastings, A. 1965. Legume inoculation: what it is and what it does.
Sheepfarming Annual. p. 49-55.
11. Murphy, W. M., and M. J. Johnson. 1976. Alfalfa varieties for Central
Oregon. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Circular of Information 656.
12. Olsen, S. R., D. V. Cole, F. S. Watanabe, and L. A. Dean. 1954.
Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium
bicardonate. USDA Circular No. 939.
15
13. Peters, D. P., and J. R. Runkles. 1967. Shoot and root growth as
affectd by water availability. In R. M. Hagan, H. R. Haise, and
T. W. Edminster (eds.) Irrigation of agricultural lands. Agronomy
11:373-386. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
14. Peterson, H. B. 1972. Water relationships and irrigation. In C. H.
Hanson (ed.) Alfalfa science and technology. Agronomy 15:469-480.
Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
15. Rhykerd, C. L., and C. J. Overdahl. 1972. Nutrition and fertilizer
use. In C. H. Hanson (ed.) Alfalfa science and technology. Agronomy
15:437-465. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
16. Roughley, R. J. 1976. The production of high.quality inoculants and
their contribution to legume yield. p. 125-136. In P. S. Nutman (ed.)
Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. International Biological Programme
7, Cambridge Univ. Press.
17. Schollenberger, C. J., and R. H. Simon. 1945. Determination of
exchange capacity and exchangeable bases in soils--ammonium acetate
method. Soil Sci. 59:13-24.
18. Simonson, G. H., and M. N. Shearer. 1971. Intake rates and storage
capacities of irrigable soils in Central and Northeastern Oregon..
Agr. Exp. Sta. Special Report 324., Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. .
19. Smith, Dale. 1962. Forage management in the North. Brown Book Co.,
Dubuque.
20. Smith, Dale. 1972. Cutting schedules and maintaining pure stands.
In C. H. Hanson (ed.) Alfalfa science and technology. Agronomy
15:481-493. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis..
21. Stanberry, C. 0. 1955. Irrigation practices for the production of
alfalfa. p. 435-443. In USDA yrbk of agriculture: water.
22. Tesar, M. B., and J. A. Jacobs. 1972. Establishing the stand. In
C. H. Hnason (ed.) Alfalfa science and technology. Agronomy 15:415-433.
Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
23. Tisdale, S. L., and W. L. Nelson. 1966. Soil fertility and fertilizers.
Macmillan Co., New York. p 128.
24. Van Riper, G. E., and Dale Smith. 1959. Changes in the chemical
composition of the herbage of alfalfa, medium red clover, ladino
clover, and bromegrass with advance in maturity. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Res. Report 4.
25. Vincent, J. M. 1974. Root nodule symbioses with Rhizobium. p. 265-341.
In A. Quispel (ed.) The biology of nitrogen fixation. American
Elsevier Pub. Co., New York.
16
26. Willard C. J. 1967. Establishment of new seedlings. p. 368-374. In
H. D. Hughes, M. E. Heath, and D. S. Metcalfe (eds.) Forages. Iowa
State Univ. Press, Ames.
27. Woodhouse, Jr., W. W. 1967. Soil fertility and the fertilization of
forages. p. 389-400. In H. D. Hughes, M.,E. Heath, and D. S. Metcalfe
(eds.) Forages. Iowa State Univ. Press., Ames.
28. Youngberg, H. 1972. Inoculating alfalfa and clover seed. Extension
Service Fact Sheet 184., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
17
OREGON AREAS HAY INDEX
Page - Area
2. Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Wasco Counties
3. Southern Oregon - Klamath Basin
4. Lake County
5. Harney County
6. Eastern Oregon - Baker, Malheur, Wallowa Counties
This report reflects weighted averages only for the calendar month!
**Please Note: Total Volume includes other non-categorized hay.**
USDA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
LIVESTOCK AND SEED DIVISION
HAY MONTHLY QUOTATIONS FOR MAR 2008
MARKET: Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Wasco Counties, OR
Moses Lake, WA
FOB Tons:
683 Last Month:
1,365 Last
Year: 940
FOB prices:
Tons
Price Range Wtd Avg Price
Alfalfa Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Good
5
165.00-165.00
165.00
Alfalfa Export 2-3 tie small sq bales
Premium
400
175.00-175.00
175.00
Alfalfa Retail/feed
store/horse 2-3 tie
small sq bales
Premium
58
170.00-180.00
179.48
Alfalfa Retail/feed
store/horse Mid/Ton
-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Premium
3
165.00-165.00
165.00
Forage Mix Retail/fe
ed store/horse 2-3
tie small sq bales
Premium
7
225.00-225.00
225.00
Orchard Retail/feed
store/horse 2-3 tie
small sq bales
Premium
101
185.00-200.00
189.60
Good
19
170.00-185.00
173.16
Orchard Retail/feed
store/horse Mid/Ton
-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Premium
30
175.00-175.00
175.00
Wheat Straw Domestic
Cattle Small squar
e, per bale
Good
60
2.50-2.50
2.50
This report reflects weighted averages only for the calendar month!
**Please Note: Total Volume includes other non-categorized hay.**
USDA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
LIVESTOCK AND SEED DIVISION
HAY MONTHLY QUOTATIONS FOR MAR 2008
MARKET: Klamath Basin, OR
Moses Lake, WA
FOB Tons:
484 Last Month: 389 Last
Year: 830
FOB prices:
Tons
Price Range Wt
d Avg Price
Alfalfa Domestic Cat
tle 2-3 tie small
sq bales
Good
15
165.00-165.00
165.00
Alfalfa Retail/feed
store/horse 2-3 ti
e small sq bales
Good
37
145.00-165.00
150.41
Alfalfa/Orchard Mix
Domestic Cattle 2-
3 tie small sq bales
Premium
334
165.00-175.00
165.72
Forage-Three Way Mix
Domestic Cattle 2
-3 tie small sq bales
Good
12
140.00-140.00
140.00
Orchard Domestic Cat
tle 2-3 tie small
sq bales
Premium
15
165.00-165.00
165.00
Orchard Retail/feed
store/horse 2-3 ti
e small sq bales
Good
5
165.00-165.00
165.00
Wheat Straw Domestic
Cattle Small squa
re, per bale
Good
18
2.50-2.50
2.50
This report reflects weighted averages only for the calendar month!
**Please Note: Total Volume includes other non-categorized hay.**
USDA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
LIVESTOCK AND SEED DIVISION
HAY MONTHLY QUOTATIONS FOR MAR 2008
MARKET: Lake County, OR
Moses Lake, WA
FOB Tons:
1,253 Last Month: 4,535 Last
Year: 905
FOB prices:
Tons Price Range Wt
d Avg Price
Alfalfa (Organic)
Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie small sq bales
Premium
92 200.00-200.00
200.00
Alfalfa (Organic)
Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Premium
183 200.00-200.00
200.00
Alfalfa Domestic
Cattle 2-3 tie small sq bales
Good
66 165.00-165.00
165.00
Fair
34 150.00-150.00
150.00
Alfalfa Domestic
Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Premium
219 165.00-185.00
174.73
Good
277 150.00-165.00
153.63
Alfalfa/Orchard M
ix Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4
x8
Good
90 165.00-165.00
165.00
Triticale Domesti
c Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Good
28 130.00-130.00
130.00
This report reflects weighted averages only for the calendar month!
**Please Note: Total Volume includes other non-categorized hay.**
USDA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
LIVESTOCK AND SEED DIVISION
HAY MONTHLY QUOTATIONS FOR MAR 2008
MARKET: Harney County, OR
Moses Lake, WA
FOB Tons: 0 Last Month: 0 Last Year:
DELIVERED Tons: 0 Last Month: 0 Last Year:
This report reflects weighted averages only for the calendar month!
**Please Note: Total Volume includes other non-categorized hay.**
USDA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
LIVESTOCK AND SEED DIVISION
HAY MONTHLY QUOTATIONS FOR MAR 2008
MARKET: Eastern Oregon, OR
Moses Lake, WA
FOB Tons:
280 Last Month: 35
Last Year: 2,140
FOB prices:
Tons Price Range
Wtd Avg Price
Alfalfa Domestic
Cattle 2-3 tie small sq bales
Fair
20 140.00-140.00
140.00
Alfalfa Domestic
Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Good
30 145.00-145.00
145.00
Fair
25 125.00-125.00
125.00
Alfalfa/Orchard
Mix Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie small sq
bales
Fair
20 140.00-140.00
140.00
Alfalfa/Orchard
Mix Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x
4x8,4x4x8
Fair
90 110.00-125.00
120.00
Alfalfa/Orchard
Mix Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie
small sq bales
Premium
10 180.00-180.00
180.00
Oat Domestic Cat
tle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Good
30 100.00-100.00
100.00
Orchard Domestic
Cattle 2-3 tie small sq bales
Fair
15 140.00-140.00
140.00
Orchard Domestic
Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8
Good
20 142.00-142.00
142.00
Fair
20 115.00-115.00
115.00
This report reflects weighted averages only for the calendar month!
**Please Note: Total Volume includes other non-categorized hay.**
t~
Grass Varieties for
Central Oregon
Special Report 468
November 1976
Agricultural Experiment Station
Oregon State University, Corvallis
^13 id t~
r ~fl
hO
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
GRASS VARIETIES FOR CENTRAL OREGON
W. M. Murphy and M. J. Johnson*
P
SUMMARY
Various grasses are suitable for pastures and hay crops in Central
Oregon. Choice of which grass to use depends on specific farm needs,
growth habits of the grasses that affect management, and potential forage-
yield levels. This report describes characteristics related to management
and use of orchardgrass, timothy, bromegrass, meadow foxtail, intermediate
wheatgrass, tall fescue, and Kentucky bluegrass. It also presents results
of a 5-year study that measured forage yields of 33 grass varieties at the
Central Oregon Experiment Station. Average annual hay yields during the
study ranged from 3.47 to 4.94 tons per acre. Orchardgrasses as a group
yielded the most forage, followed in•order of productivity by timothies,
bromegrasses, meadow foxtails, intermediate wheatgrasses, tall fescues, and
Kentucky bluegrass.
INTRODUCTION
Several grasses and many of their varieties are potentially useful for
pastures and hay crops in Central Oregon. Besides differences in forage-
yielding ability, each kind of grass has unique features that make it more
suitable than others to meet a specific need. In choosing a grass for a
particular use, one should consider its characteristics that affect manage-
ment and its probable yield level in this area.
This report describes characteristics related to management and use of
seven grasses. It also presents results of a 5-year study that compared
forage yields of 33 grass varieties at the Central Oregon Experiment Station.
*Research Agronomist and Superintendent, respectively, Central Oregon
Experiment Station, Redmond, Oregon 97756.
PLANT DESCRIPTIONS
ORCHARDGRASS
Orchardgrass is a long-lived, perennial bunchgrass that develops an
open sod of tufted shoots held together by short rhizomes. It tends to form
large tussocks, especially if grazed improperly. Careful grazing manage-
ment and seeding with a legume lessen this tendecy. It is weakened by fre-
quent and close grazing.
Although orchardgrass is less winterhardy than bromegrass, timothy,
or Kentucky bleugrass, it grows more rapidly in cool spring weather than
these grasses. It also grows later into fall than these grasses, but not
as late as tall fescue. The main advantage that orchardgrass has over other
pasture grasses for use in Central Oregon is that it tolerates more heat.
This characteristic, plus its ability to recover rapidly after grazing or
mowing, enables it to produce abundant, high-quality forage during hot sum-
mer months, when other grasses are dormant. This distributes production
more uniformly over the season.
Orchardgrass resists dry soil conditions better than timothy, but not
as well as bromegrass. Although it persists longer and produces more than
these grasses when grown on shallow, infertile soils, it responds well to
high soil fertility levels, especially nitrogen.
Orchardgrass growing on a fertile soil is highly nutritious and pala-
table at immature growth stages. Since orchardgrass grows more rapidly in
spring than other pasture grasses, it matures before others do. It must be
grazed heavily or mowed early in the season to maintain a continuous supply
of immature forage that is palatable and nutritious. Its best use is for
pasture in association with clover or alfalfa (6,7,9,11).
TIMOTHY
Timothy is a long-lived, perennial bunchgrass with a shallow, fibrous
root system that develops an open sod. It grows better on heavy moist
soils than on light-textured sandy soils. Having a shallow root system,
2
timothy grows poorly under dry soil conditions or during hot periods, unless
irrigated properly.
Because of its upright growth habit, timothy performs best for hay
production, but it also can be used for pasture. When grown with clover or
alfalfa, the first growth can be cut for hay, and the aftermath pastured.
It establishes rapidly, producing high yields in the first year after plant-
ing, and competes very little with legumes in the mixture. Frequent cut-
ting or grazing easily weakens timothy (4,6,9,11).
BROMEGRASS
Bromegrass is a long-lived, upright-growing perennial that develops a
loose sod filled with many.roots and rhizomes. It grows on many kinds of
soils, but does best on .deep, well-drained, fertile soils. It tolerates
temperature extremes and dry soil conditions. It establishes slowly; full
production may not be reached until the third year.
Bromegrass requires careful management with close attention to growth
stages. Cutting or grazing bromegrass at wrong times in its development
can weaken and eliminate it from the stand. It should be cut or grazed
only when it is in the young, leafy, rosette stage or at a later, more mature,
headed stage. Its need for careful management is the main disadvantage for
its use in Central Oregon.
Immature bromegrass forage has excellent quality, with protein concen-
tration ranging from 12 to 30 percent on fertile soils having plenty of
available nitrogen. Large amounts of green leaves remain after the seed
heads mature, and palatability consequently remains high.
Bromegrass may be used alone or in mixture with other grasses or le-
gumes for hay and pasture. It continues to produce during midsummer when
other grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass, become dormant (6,8,9,11).
MEADOW FOXTAIL
Meadow foxtail is a long-lived perennial that develops a medium-dense
sod in old, heavy stands. It begins growing in early spring, and produces
3
a succession of flowering stems until early summer. It resists temperature
extremes, and continues to grow during hot summer months with adequate soil
moisture. It grows best on moist or even swampy fertile soils and tolerates
saline soils, if moist.
Its long grazing season, winter hardiness, and succulent, palatable
forage make meadow foxtail a grass worth considering for use in Central
Oregon on soils that meet its moisture requirements. It is used mainly
for pastures, but can also be cut for hay (5,6,9).
INTERMEDIATE WHEATGRASS
Intermediate wheatgrass is a'vigorous, perennial bunchgrass that forms
a loose sod. It grows best on well-drained, fertile soils receiving at
least 15 inches of precipitation or equivalent irrigation.
Its main advantage for use in Central Oregon is its ability to produce
well under both non-irrigated and irrigated conditions.
Intermediate wheatgrass begins growth late in the spring; grazing too
early eliminates it. Good pasture stands do not last as long as with other
grasses, even with the best management (6,9,10).
TALL FESCUE
Tall fescue is a deeply rooted, tufted, long-lived perennial with creep-
ing rootstocks that develop a uniform, thick sod in older stands. It has a
long growing season and remains green during much of the year if soil mois-
ture and nitrogen levels are adequate. Its seedling establishment is slow
and its palatability is less than that of bromegrass, orchardgrass, and
timothy. Close grazing and clipping of established stands prevent accumu-
lation of old leaves and improve its palatability. When it is grown with a le-
gume to improve pasture quality, livestock tend to overgraze and eliminate -
the legume, while ignoring the less palatable tall fescue. New stands are
weak and easily damaged by heavy or too early grazing. Its slow establish-
ment and low palatabiltiy are the main disadvantages of tall fescue for
use in Central Oregon.
4
It is one of the best grasses for use on poorly drained areas of irri-
gated pastures; it tolerates both alkalinity and salinity of wet soils.
Under fertile, wet soil conditions, however, tall fescue produces rapid,
rank growth that smothers out legumes growing with it (2,6,9).
t
KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS
Kentucky bluegrass is along-lived perennial that spreads by rhizomes
and forms a dense sod. It becomes dormant during hot midsummer periods.
Proper irrigation and use of nitrogen fertilizer can reduce this tendency,
but do not prevent it from becoming semidormant. This growth habit is its
main disadvantage for use in Central Oregon, since the midsummer yield
reduction affects the number of animals that can be supported. Animal
numbers per acre must be adjusted throughout the summer and, consequently,
management is more difficult.
Kentucky bluegrass grows on many different soils, but produces best
on well-drained, fertile soils of limestone origin. For good pasture pro-
duction, it must be maintained at a height of 2 to 6 inches by proper graz-
ing or mowing management. If kept too short, weak roots and rhizomes deve-
lop; if allowed to grow too high, legumes disappear and weeds enter the
sod. Kentucky bluegrass can withstand closer grazing than other grasses
without serious injury (3,6,9).
YIELD PERFORMANCES
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Thirty-three grass varieties were seeded on Deschutes loamy sand at
the Central Oregon Experiment Station, Redmond, in August, 1967, in 5 by 20
foot plots, replicated four times. Varieties of orchardgrass, timothy,
bromegrass, meadow foxtail, intermediate wheatgrass, tall fescue, and
Kentucky bluegrass were used. Plots were fertilized annually with 500
pounds per acre of 16-20 in March, and 380 pounds per acre of ammonium
sulfate in June. They were irrigated with 12 inches of water every 5.to 7
days during summer months. Grasses were cut in June and August (also Septem-
ber 1970) between 1968 and 1972.
5
Pr-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Average annual hay yields during the, study were highest for orchard-
grassesasagroup (4.51 ton/acre), followed in order of productivity by
i
timothies (4.34 ton/acre), bromegrasses (4.22 ton/acre), meadow foxtails
(4.14 ton/acre), intermediate wheatgrasses (4.05 ton/acre), tall fescues
(3.97 ton/acre), and Kentucky bluegrass (3.60 ton/acre)(Table 1).
Just as groups of grasses produced differently, varieties within the
groups varied in their yields of forage. Sterling not only was the highest
yielding orchardgrass variety, but produced more forage than any other grass
variety. Clair was the highest yielding timothy variety. All bromegrasses
yielded similar amounts of forage. All improved meadow foxtails produced
more than Common meadow foxtail, which yielded less than all other grass
varieties. All intermediate wheatgrasses produced similar amounts of forage.
Alta and Kenwell yielded less than any other gall fescue varieties tested,
producing at a level similar to Kentucky bluegrass, slightly above Common
meadow foxtail.
In using these results, one should be aware that yield estimates, ob-
tained by cutting grasses used mainly for pastures, tend to be 25 to 70
percent higher than those obtained by grazing with livestock. This is
because cutting treatments fail to account for unrecovered forage rejected
by animals, and the depressing effects of trampling and animal excrements
on grazed forage yields (1).
CONCLUSIONS
Considering plant characteristics and yield levels under local condi-
tions, Sterling orchardgrass probably would perform better than other grasses
for irrigated pastures in Central Oregon. Clair timothy, if properly irri-
gated, would be best suited for hay production. With careful management,
bromegrass would perform well for either pasture or hay production, under
drier soil conditions than suitable for orchardgrass or timothy. Under wet
soil conditions, improved meadow foxtails and Kenmont or Fawn fescues would
be the best choices for pastures. Meadow foxtails can also be used for hay
under wet soil conditions. Intermediate wheatgrasses are useful where irri-
6
Table 1. Yields of grass varieties grown at the Central Oregon Experiment
Station, Redmond, 1968-1972.
Hir-ary nay
, tons/
acre*
Variety
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Avg
Orchardgrass
Common
3.46
4.96
5.79
4.61
3.89
4.54
Latar
3.04
3.87
5.16
4.13
4.04
4
05
Chinook
3.10
4.44
5.02
5.15
3.92
.
4
33
Masshardy
3.29
4.64
5.19
4.23
4.18
.
4
31
Wisc F52A
4.15
4.82
6.39
4.63
4.23
.
4
84
Pennlate
3.67
4.68
5.32
4.74
4.03
.
4
49
Sterling
3.92
5.44
5.89
5.07
4.38
.
4
94
Penmead
3.50
4.79
6.10
4.45
3.84
.
4.54
Tim°t~
Clair
3.87_
-
3.85
5.92
5.65
4.71
4.80
Climax
3.55
3.22
5.30
4.52
4.52
4
22
Essex
3.14
3.09
4.96
3.84
4.18 .
.
3
84
Wisc. T-1
3.57
3.45
.4.82
4.68
,
4.21
.
4
15
Common
3.41
a 1*1
A (17
A Al
A 77
.
A -1A
Bromegrass
Manchar
3.90
4.46
5.14
4.52
4.03
4
41
Sask S 6325
3.98
4.33
4.21
3.62
4.15
.
4
06
Canadian Common
3.82
4.46
4.16
4.52
3.95
.
4.18
Meadow foxtail
Common
3.22
2.95
4.63
3.21
3.31
3
47
Pill Creeping
3.83
3.67
5.48
4.28
4.12
.
4.28
Garrison's Creeping
3.63
3.86
5.00
3.96
4.40
4
17
Mich. Syn. Creeping
4.18
3.44
5.47
3.89
4.73
.
4
34
.Mich. Syn.
3.60
3.59
5.80
4.97
4.34
.
4.46
Intermediate wheat grass
Greenar
3.99
3.47
4.32
4.14
3.83
3
95
Nebraska 50
3.69
3.65
4.61
4.62
3.86
.
4
09
Oahe
3.84
3.66
4.22
4.16
4.07
.
3
99
Chief
3.60
3.73
4.80
4.76
4.03
.
4.18
Tall fescue
Alta
2.25
4.23
4.89
3.58
3.81
3
75
Kenwell
2.20
4.23
4.15
3.81
4.06
.
3
69
Kenmont
.2.41
4.75
4.75
4.76
4.06
.
4
15
Fawn
2.33
4.09
5.24
3.91
4.70
.
4
06
240x241
2.68
4.17
5.69
4.22
4.36
.
22
4
Syn L
2.12
4.07
4.73
3.97
4.16
.
3.81
Syn I
2.53
4.43
5.36
4.04
4.20
4.11
Kentucky bluegrass
Common
3.45
2.39
4.33
2.89
4.04
3.60
L.S.D. 0.05
0.69
0.93
0.96
1.10
0.91
0.93
*Totals of two harvests
in all
years except
1970,
when three
harvests
were made.
7
VP_
gation water may be inadequate some years or under dryland conditions re-
ceiving at least 15 inches of annual precipitation. Kentucky bluegrass,
although less productive than the other grasses studied, is well suited
for horse pastures because it withstands close grazing of horses. Supple-
mental pasture or feed need to be provided during midsummer when bluegrass
becomes dormant.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Carter, J. F. 1962. Herbage sampling for yield; tame pastures. In
G. 0. Mott (ed.) Pasture and range techniques. Comstock Publishing Associ-
ates, Ithaca. p. 90-101.
2. Cowan, J. R. 1962. The fescues. In H. D. Hughes, M. E. Heath, and D. S.
Metcalfe (eds.) Forages. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. p. 300-307.
3. Fergus, E. N. 1962. The bluegrasses. In H. D. Hughes, M. E. Heath, and
D. S. Metcalfe (eds.) Forages. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. p. 220-228.
4. Hanson, A. A., and M. W. Evans. 1962. Timothy. In H. D. Hughes, M. E.
Heath, and D. S. Metc-lfe (eds..) Forages. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
p. 251-275.
5.. Hawk, V. B., and J. L. Schwendiman. 1962. Other grasses for the North and
West. In H. D. Hughes, M. E. Heath, and D. S. Metcalfe (eds.) Forages.
Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. p. 234-336.
6. Hoover, M. M., M. A. Hein, W. A. Dayton, and C. 0. Erlanson. 1948. The
main grasses for farm and home. In Grass. 1948 yrbk of agric. USDA,
Washington, D. C. p. 639-700.
7. Myers, W. M. 1962. Orchardgrass. In H. D. Hughes, M. E. Heath, D. S.
Metclafe (eds.) Forages. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. p. 258-269.
8. Newell, L. C., and K. L. Anderson. 1962. Smooth bromegrass. In H. D.
Hughes, M. E. Heath, D. S. Metcalfe (eds.) Forages. Iowa State Univ.
Press, Ames. P. 229-237.
9. Phillips Petroleum Co. 1955. Native grasses, legumes, and forbs. Phillips
Chemical Co., Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
10. Rogler, G.. A. 1962. The wheatgrasses. In H. D. Hughes, M. E. Heath, D.
S. Metcalfe (eds.) Forages. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. p. 314-323.
11. Smith, Dale, 1962. Forage management in the North. Brown Book Co., Dubuque.
8
Page 1 of 2
Peter Gutowsky
From: Terri Hansen Payne
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:39 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: TA 07-7 Text amendment
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Terri Hansen Payne
Subject: FW: TA 07-7 Text amendment
From: Bill Miller [mailto:oldskier99@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:33 PM
To: Board
Subject: TA 07-7 Text amendment
Deschutes Count Board of Commissioners
From: William N. Miller
RE: TA 07-7 Text amendment
Aug. 18, 2008
Commissioners,
As a close neighbor of the Aspens Lake Development I became a supporter of the
Cyruses precisely because they did adhere so closely to the restrictions of a Cluster
development. I actually wrote a letter to Keith Cyrus in appreciation of the changes
they made to accommodate concerns of those of us who are neighbors. Their desire to
now convert to a Destination Resort feels like a personal slap in the face. The drive
north on Camp Polk Road from Aspen Lakes through the Camp Polk Meadow is open
and rural in nature as befits the original intentions of the Cluster Development. Any
building in the open spaces will not only destroy the beauty of this countryside but
threaten all of the wonderful work being done to restore both the Camp Polk Meadows
and Wychus Creek. I am convinced that if there had been any hint that this was in the
wind I would have been only one among many who would have tried hard to have the
9/2/2008
Page 2 of 2
whole original Aspens Lakes Plan rejected by the County Commissioners.
I am glad you people are there with the authority to take a cool and objective look at
these kinds of issues.
William N. Miller
69592 Lake Dr.
Sisters, OR 97759
541-549-3028
9/2/2008
iced
e
T C 5s; Hers
OJk R w-we . a Q s`~; ; ~12 s
a~ t s lC~ `
Q s~ 4Lk-
h k
~A
TO
4~
L1
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008
Deschutes County CDD
1r-!
V -9+-ph'^Tl
/~2
r
I/yl
> f 1
F
bl-o Li~,fl
zz
~J
IL
f
Page 1 of 1
Peter Gutowsky
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: FW: Tax Amendment 07-7
From: PHOEBE OLSON [mailto:polson@prodigy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Board
Subject: Tax Amendment 07-7
Please consider a no vote to subject amendment which would change county planning guidelines to allow the second
Aspen Lakes development, a large development, to proceed.
A number of ecological issues including most importantly our water system,would speak to rejecting this
development.
Additionally, the monetary problems facing the entire nation's economy do not speak to rushing into developments
large and small, and then wondering how purchasers will finance them.
And the need to upgrade Camp Polk Road to handle the anticipated additional traffic must be considered.
And finally, when land is developed, it remains forever developed, and wilderness areas with their flora and fauna are
forever lost.
Please, let us hold the line on further development.
Phoebe Bowen Olson
69923 Meadow View Road
Sisters
Deschutes County
9/17/2008
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
I support approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7. Thank you for your consideration.
SinCerely,
Matt Phillips
19919 Birch Ln
Bend, OR 97701
BOARD Of 9Q~a, C~Mrv,';SS/p
h,.
rs
September 12, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Commissioners:
We would like to express our support for a text amendment to the County Code as
proposed by the developers of Aspen Lakes Golf Course and its residential community.
In the seven years we have lived in the Aspen Lakes development we have been closely following the
proceedings regarding the developer's request for authority to continue the development of contiguous
properties under the designation of a destination resort.
We believe their plans to be in the best interest of all of us in this area. The development of these areas as a
planned community will be a positive contribution in contrast to the unknown future developments of this space
by individuals in an open and uncoordinated manner.
The creation of substantial new revenue sources for the County and the City of Sisters should be a welcome
benefit.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Rossio and Harriet L. Rossio
16863 Royal Coachman Drive
Sisters, OR 97759
L E E
=,15
11
OAR
D Of roMMISS!ONERS
ADMINISTRATION
August 11, 2008
Dear Deschutes County. Board of Commissioners,
The Redmond Chamber of Commerce & CVB would like to offer its support for the
proposed Aspen Lakes Resort. Destination resorts have been a positive asset in Central
Oregon for several decades now. Eagle Crest Resort, near Redmond, has played a
significant economic role in the local community and in Deschutes County since their
inception in the raid-eighties. The Redmond community has significantly benefited from
Eagle Crest Resort's contribution to the economy, via the local jobs created,, tax
contributions, tourism generation and philanthropic projects that they support.
Destination resorts are a major economic engine for the region. They have created new
niche markets for the region to tap into that were not even available prior to their
development in Central Oregon. The Redmond Chamber has supported applications for
the development of Brasada Ranch, Pronghorn and the proposed Thornburgh Resort.
Resorts bring in thousands of new visitors every year which many of the local businesses
depend on.
The proposed Aspen Lakes Resort will provide a positive economic and socio-economic
impact to the local community. The increased jobs, tourism expansion, tax revenue and
philanthropic contributions will provide a significant boost to our region. Again, the
Redmond Chamber supports Aspen Lakes Resort application for resort status.
If you have any further question, please call.
Sincerely,
t
S ~
Eric Sande, Executive'Director
Redmond Chamber of Commerce & CVB
446 S. W. Seventh Street • Redmond, Oregon 97756 9 Ph: 541-923-5191 • Fax: 541-923-6442
Page 1 of 1
Peter Gutowsky
From: Zeta Seiple fzseiple@bendbroadband.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:21 AM
To: Board
Subject: Aspen Lakes Golf Course Estates
Tammy Melton, Dennis Luke, and Mike Daly:
As a neigbor of the Aspen Lakes area, we are deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the Aspen Lakes Golf Course
Estates.
1. The conversion to a resort would mean the developers could build new housing on property that was designated Open Space
in perpetuity as part of the original subdivision. It could create a new pathway for converting existing housing subdivisions to
resorts, and set a precedent for creating subdivisions outside the urban growth boundary.
2. This conversion would violate existing county and state guidelines for destination resorts.
3.. The environmental impacts of siting a destination resort .16 miles from critical steelhead and salmon reintroduction sites on
Why-Chus Creek will be severe. This project would impact the infrastructure of the existing water system. There is only a finite
amount of water in this aquifer which recharges Whychus Creek, and the effect of a large volume of groundwater pumping to
exisitng resident's wells is a grave concern. Camp Polk Road would need costly improvements as wells as the narrow bridge over
Whychus Creek.
We urge you to vote against this proposal to change Aspen Lakes Golf Course Estates to a destination resort.
Thank you
Richard and Zeta Seiple
9/17/2008
T D E S I G N
HW0RKSa
EGR0UPU.
F A X T R A N S M I T T A L
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners AT F 5, 2008
_ - i Sept t
11v. FAX N0. 385-1764
FROM. Torrey Sharp N0 OF PAGES. ]
R E Text Amendment TA-07-7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners,
1 support approval of Text Amendment TA-07-7. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Toney Sharp
Principal, The DesignWorks Group
2E 501; 111 PINE STREET P0% F OFFICE BOX 1775 SISTERS OREGON 97 7159
TELEP - ONE 5 4'..549 1090 ACSIMILE: 541.549.1091 T.1 EOESIGNW0RKSGR0UP.C0M
TOO
D
444 ';r
Peter Gutowsky: Deschutes County Community Planning Department
117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701
Dear Mr. Gutowsky,
This letter is in regards to TA-07-01 and the proposed development of a destination resort by
the Cyrus family on Camp Polk Road. As President of the Aspen Lakes Estates Owner's
Association, I (and my husband) have had the opportunity to be involved in several discussions
of the proposed destination resort and its possible ramifications to our neighborhood, the
adjacent neighborhoods, its environmental impact. transportation flow and its economic
benefits to the city of Sisters. With all the information currently available to us and recognizing
that it will have little if any negative impact on Aspen Lakes Estates, we would like to endorse
the proposed development of the destination resort and firmly believe that it will enhance our
neighborhood in a positive way. We believe the Cyrus family's intentions to create a
destination resort will increase the sustainability of the current golf course, lodge and this
neighborhood.
Our current community at Aspen Lakes is a solid example of the Cyrus family's dedication to
maintaining a beautiful neighborhood while attentively maintaining the environmental
sustainability of wildlife and the attention to the natural beauty of the area. In addition they
have been recognized by the Audubon Society for their enhancement and attention to detail
regarding wildlife as well as recently being the stewards of the movement within our
community to make it a Fire Wise Community that had to meet national standards to be
designated as such. Continuing efforts such as these convince us personally that their intention
to provide the city of Sisters and surrounding community with a destination resort to bring
financial revenue gain as well as meeting the standards of awareness of development of a new
resort that would carefully consider its impact on adjacent neighborhoods, transportation
impact and environmental issues is evident.. Our support is based on previous behavior in
providing Aspen Lakes Estates such an inviting and beautiful community in which to reside. We
wish to make it clear that we endorse their proposed destination resort and speak for
ourselves, not as respresentatives of the board or other members of our community.
Sincerely, Phyllis and Russ Smith
17084 Lady Caroline Drive Sisters, Or 97759
RECEIVW
S F P 04 2008
Deschutes County CDD
17 September, 2008
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701-1960
www.deschutes.org
Richard Van Winkle
16915 HWY 126
Sisters, OR 97759
Re: Aspen Lakes and TA-07-7
Honorable Members of the Board!
I write (again) in support of the adoption of TA-07-7. In my previous
submissions of support (to the Planning Commission) I have noted
three primary grounds in support of this simple amendment:
1. It's logical
2. It's legal
3. It's fair
Others seem to understand the logic of the amendment - it's the
simplest, fastest, and most appropriate way to deal with the very
unusual unintended consequence of governmental oversight. Given the
clearly articulated Legislative support for destination resort
development (as in the Goals and the Law), there is no argument that
had the Legislature contemplated the conversion of a cluster
development into a destination resort, they would have been strongly
in favor of it (with the same type of controls required of new
developments). You should be strongly in favor of it for all the logical
reasons: economic benefits to the County (taxes, jobs, and income),
wonderful new recreational and recreational support opportunities for
the community and its visitors, and good karma (progress, "green"
development, and popularity).
The legal (and political) question has been the focus of the objecting
Planning Commission staff and some members. There's even an
opinion by a state staffer who thinks the amendment is contrary to the
state's resort development laws. Phooey! You make the law for the
County - where it doesn't conflict with State law. Since everyone
understands that State law doesn't address the conversion of a cluster
development into a destination resort, it is your responsibility (and
opportunity) to address the issue. Obviously, it would be prudent to
take the State's views into account, but the land use laws were
specifically designed with flexibility for County governments to make it
work for them. Make it work for your citizens by adopting this text
amendment.
Finally, I hope you will consider carefully the fairness issue. Aside from
the general principle of land-owner's rights (Is there some overriding
public interest in preventing the conversion of this resort into a
destination resort?), there's the question of treating citizens fairly. The
Aspen Lakes folks have made every effort to do this development in a
lawful and appropriate manner. Would it be fair to add an/another
unnecessary obstacle? Just because they could seek a County variance
or new State legislation to overcome this hurdle doesn't mean its fair
(or legal or logical) to force them to do so. .
There will always be those who find reasons to block progress,
regardless of how much it benefits the public. Aspen Lakes has already
proven to be a huge benefit to the public. Adopting TA-07-7 will
provide a logical, legal and fair path to progress.
I appreciate greatly your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard Van Winkle
Agenda Item
Name /Z
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
i 7
of Interest Date
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
1-1 In Favor
LE • 0,
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes
X Opposed
Z_No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest A,!5 r2R441 Date u "081
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
R In Favor
1-1 Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1 Yes
L
Opposed
No
C K ^ 711).
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
oil
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 1 Date taw
Name
Address
C
~ V.17~-~
S S°
Phone #s~
E-mail address &^V W S
m r
1-1 In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? C Yes
Opposed
No
f=S ~
o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest P L.) S Date
Name M
Address
Phone #s 5Lfq-
I1 uh, I) r
E-mail address
1-1 In Favor
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F~ Yes o
F] Neutral/Undecided 1~ Opposed
0r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest A - 0 -7 - -7 Date ~1 - l 7-tj
Name -V4 'K A
Address IA .t~ Cdr f / j ^y.^ } G~
Phone #s f,. ,q - L e,3n
E-mail address Bahr 14~~, dy*L,.
I I- In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes No
o ~j BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest A 7", f .T Date
Name fi* i NA f. ,1
Address
i ~f 1Nr
Phone #s
U-17 7
E-mail address
1-1 In Favor F1 Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? JR Yes
0 Opposed
No
`~T F r{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest Date
Name Address 7 4
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes
Opposed
Lam""
rTE rC~, : , , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
o -c
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest ( Date
Name I tx., 1{ w. J 6
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
1-1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes
Of Opposed
No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 4-ex4 Date 2
Name c L2 c-, p_a~
Address (S~`~`(? ,
Phone #s ~ S`z.--
E-mail address
33
Q-6 c r,_1 (e
U In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes F-] No
.-rte=: ,•,7.
o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 5 Kam- (_c Date
Name 0 c r~
Address (n Sr C, .5-~ t-- L_ C, 47-
S►S~RS
Phone #s +i Z__V i S
17
E-mail address ✓s-~►2~k-~--~ P
F1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
® Opposed
No
41T~n
o'= BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest' Date "
Name ~ti,_ '4'` 't': e
Address n,
Phone #s°,~
E-mail address
[D-- In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided
11 Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes [~_No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest A'~ Date ,
Name
Address 1 }
Phone #s -
E-mail address C
1-1 In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes
UY] Opposed
No
C
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest Date
Name
Address
-,Ar
Phone #s 3
E-mail address
~In Favor F1 Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Q Yes F No
Q BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest Date .
Name A4 A~.1~ `~:<~r
Address e, `~...,!2 ca S + ).k ..,r 4
Phone #s
E-mail address
❑ In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No
'Y E ~ h
J
BO
ARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
tl 4`_<
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 14~S 11-41- Date ? ' a`a
c
Name 1:::f . C eJ C, 4", ~C ~A-1, m -S, S~ S
Address 52.0 E SL s S
Phone #s 3 Z3 - 521
E-mail address 2 Pacjre_~ S 0GA 5, %'l-te-S , 0( . is
1-1 In Favor [E~-Neutral/Undecided 1-1 Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F;~es F] No
1~. ch J ~ ~ 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest Asp`,, L .s TAo?o 9 Date
Name A O 1. D IE W Ey
Address l S 3 et N w V (C V S 8 0 2C.
aEmlb ci7Ia f
Phone #s 'mac? - (44 3
E-mail address 0-A w s.,
F] In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided a Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 2-Yes F~ No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 0 e i Ur c), T,-.,,Y l Date 9)17)
Name DP L e i C o y - Q J
Address 69:29S
I-I G wl~,-~I,u I•r D~••-c
S►JFc~t
Phone #s 5 4 y 4 8 p y
E-mail address 4 l^ C G r G C C o cow jt.
❑ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided P Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F/]Yes R No
•T~S n
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest A - 03 Date -qName _ 't 1A A
Address ~S 74o N W Lv, . baJ ; 0 P. 9.`4 -70 1
Phone #s ~ 3
E-mail address %pyL.Sw "14Ab ",~EM4, cool
El~ In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes 0 No IV44 "-4_
J~F
X. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest 77A - 0 `7- 7 Date g - 17 - 4~
Name
no-
Address 1 f 9.~s r r J---) 1"a4e
Phone #s S 1/19 ~1 3~
E-mail address g~ a / rs .Cow
RI In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes
Opposed
a No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING j
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
/"In Favor
Date
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes
1-1 Opposed
No
tT;
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
H REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest
Name
Address ID 'L 2 (
`1 7 6
Date
Phone #s Sy- 1 - a C 0 (2-
E-mail address
In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided F] Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes ~No
/ >)TE=S r.
a 1{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest - Date
Name V,
Address 1; C( 9 0 V~ t L"I e-,,, Lo, ot,
T,y-t,c Q -7 _70
Phone #s (-I (-4 Z~C
E-mail address uzt-s Cc-, 's ,
0~in Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Z Yes F] No
1.TE ~ h
o. { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest Date /
Name
Address
Phone #s ~ W
E-mail address
0\ In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes
Opposed
No
,r - r
sr , ~f
o~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING;
REQUEST TO SPEAK /
Agenda Item of Intere;X Date
Address
Phone #s - ~ - % - 7 7
E-mail address
5( In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided
a0
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1 Yes Eeo
CST 'fTl„////
L' ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ~l
REQUEST TO SPEAK 7~0
Agenda Item of Interest _1 S~ t', f s Date "
Name O,~ 6.~. hr
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided F-] Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes F]No
~JTES ~
Agenda Item of Interest
N V e -A)
Address I/
~
Phone #s
E-mail address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
1,-,3 1il`
6, -7-- ~
Datef
i ~b ear
fc Q~
f 4f.> a IV,
F] In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? FlYes Q No
L~ r~s
Agenda Item of Interest
Name
REQUEST TO SPEAK
7'~
Date "
Address .ova' / J
Phone #s
E-mail address
12- ,cod
1-1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes ~ No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ~r~ n-'U