2010-2767-Ordinance No. 2010-024 Recorded 7/29/2010REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS Vu 20~0~2~~~
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 47/28/2010 10'12'32 AM
2010-2111
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Chapter 23.84, Adopting Destination
Resort Remapping Comprehensive Plan Goals
and Policies, and Declaring an Emergency.
* ORDINANCE NO. 2010-024
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") directed County staff to initiate
amendments to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") DCC Chapter 23.84, Destination Resorts, in order to allow for
amending the County Comprehensive Plan Map regarding properties eligible for the destination resort
designation; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, public hearings were held on
November 19, 2009, and on December 2, 2009 before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and, on
December 2, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2010 the Planning Commission forwarded to the Board additional
recommendations for amendments to DCC Chapter 23.84; and
WHEREAS, the Board held duly noticed public hearings on January 20, March 1, April 5, and April 19,
2010 on Ordinance 2010-001, the ordinance that included the amendments to DCC Chapter 23.84, and
Ordinance 2010-002, the ordinance that added DCC Chapter 22.23, the procedures for amending the County
Comprehensive Plan map;
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2010, the Board amended Ordinance 2010-002, conducted the first and second
reading by title only of Ordinances 2010-001 and 2010-002, and adopted both ordinances declaring an
emergency; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, the Board determined that the adoption of Ordinance 2010-002 was not done in
accordance with ORS 203.045(6) because the amendment to Ordinance 2010-002 adopted on June 7, 2010 was
not included in the ordinance filed with the Board Clerk on June 1, 2010 or read in full by the Board, thereby
rendering the ordinance ineffective; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2010, the Board repealed Ordinances 2010-001 and 2010-002 and scheduled a
public hearing on new versions of both ordinances for June 30, 2010 at 10:00 am; and
and
WHEREAS, this ordinance replaces Ordinance 2010-001 with additional amendments to DCC 23.84;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public
hearing on June 30, 2010 and concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the land use regulations;
and
WHEREAS, in order to be able to provide direct public notice utilizing the county tax statement mailing
in October, 2010 the Board finds it in the public interest to adopt this ordinance by emergency; now, therefore,
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-024
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Chapter 23.84, Destination Resorts, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in stfikedii-eugl~.
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Section 3. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Dated this Z-' of 010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
7DESCHU'ES COUNTY, OREGON
D IS R. LUKE, ai
c v&,
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of 1St Reading
Date of 2°d Reading:
Commissioner
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
day of '2010.
~p~
yu' day of 2010.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Yes No Abstained
Effective date: Z day of , 2010.
U 6
ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair
TAMMY BARRY, Commis er
Excused
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-024
Chapter 23.84. DESTINATION RESORTS
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
23.84.020. Goals.
23.84.030. Policies.
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
The numerous beneficial impaets of destination resorts are Feeognized by Statewide Planning Goal 8 and by
iffipleraenting statutes. The past expefienees with destination fesofts in Desehutes County have genefally
been N;et-y p'. sitive.
of the County. This was feeognized by the County in the eompfehensiye plan adopted in 1979. Undef th-e
- , F 3;
OS&G, MUA-1-0 and RR 10 zones.
..............-Since 1979 destination resorts have increased in importance to the economy of Deschutes County-A
r
eeono.my, paffietflar4y as the timber- industfy has gone into .
In 1989, Rrecognizing the importance of tourism to the economy of the State of Oregon, the state
legislature and the Land. Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDCD have W took steps to
make it easier to establish destination resorts on rural lands in the state. Statewide Planning Goal 8, the
recreation goal, was amended to specify a process for locating destination resorts on rural land without
taking an exception to Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14, which govern development in rural resource lands. This was
followed by legislation incorporating Goal 8 into Oregon's land use statutes. By these actions, the State of
Oregon recognized destination resorts as a legitimate rural land use. Under these changes, destination
resorts may be sited in EFU zones where they weren't allowed before. Another- aetio a the state level
affeeting the siting of destination resoi4s, in the f4est tule adopted by 1,CDC in N4afeh 1990. Tbis fule
The Go ~es thM the siting of destination fesof4s would be sevefely limited if sueb
h-nplementation of desfiiia6on fesei4 si6ng andef Goal 8 is optional.' The Goal 8 legislative pfeeess fin
Following the changes to the
state regulations, because implementation of destination resort siting under Goal 8 was optional and the
county_. _had not undertaken that im 1g1..n tation, the deyelo ers_gf._:Fa Ile C restWli:ed_._for...._le6slative
changes in the County's comprehensive plan and implementing; land use ordinances. The Eagle Crest
e of developers wished to expand their current destination resort onto adjacent lands and wished to do so
without going through the exceptions process._ They _._were_._ableto.__do sq_.._when ...._the.... County. adopted..._a
destination resort overlay map. In order, Pronghorn, Caldera Springs, and Tetherow resorts have been sited
since that time. Resorts existing trrior to the legislative change, such as Black Butte, Sunriver and the Inn of
the Seventh Mountain have also expanded and been rezoned to i.Jrban I.1ninco. orated Communi and
Resort Community, respectively.
In March 1990, LCDC adopted the "forest rule." `this rule allows destination resorts to be sited on
forest lands ursuant to Goal 8. The cgg1 ado ted this rule for land zoned Forest Use-2. Additionally the
legislature, in 2003, amended the state statutes, adding new language allowing counties to remap eligible
lands for destination resorts not more frequently than once every thirty (30) months. Remappingis now
dependent on creating a process for collecting, and processing all proposed map amendments submitted to
the county within that thirty (30) month planning period.
PAGE 1 OF 5 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-024
In order to allow destination resorts within the county, Goal 8 requires that Deschutes County adopt a
map showing which lands are available for destination resort development. The purpose of the map is to
provide greater certainty concerning destination resort siting than is available under the exceptions
process. To protect forest and farm resources. Goal 8 prescribes that certain classes of lands are off limits
to destination resort .__deyelop nenThe..._final map must. refl:ect._exclusion of such areas. However,
although a property is mapped as eligible fora destination resort, a destination resort may not be
permitted outright in that location. In order to be approved., a proposal for a resort must be processed as a
conditional use and must comma with,__the specific standards .._and.._criteria _-established by the county._for
destination resorts.
Goal 9 r-equifes that the G'ounty adopt a map showing whieh lands in the Gotinvy, are availab. le fei
destination fesoft siting than is available andef the 3eess. To pfeteet fefest and fafm fesetffeeii,
Goal 9 pfese+4bes that eeftain elasses of lands afe off de4inatien fesoft development. The fina4
limits ~o de,
'the ffi in
G'otin~y is ftwnd in the Reseufee Element of the eefapfehensive plan.
Goal 8 and the state statute also recognize that destination resorts can have negative impacts on
neighborhoods trans~ortai on..._fa_cilities and the rural quality of life. These impacts caq, however, be
substantially mitigated evf. The County recognizes the importance of balancing protection
mechanisms for resource lands and rural land uses with the economic benefits destination resorts provide.
The County further recognizes that this balance can be struck by the manner in which areas are designated
as being available for destination resort development and by deyel(Ting e destablishing thorough
siting criteria. In establishing these thorough siting criteria,
the County recognizes that it has the option to be more restrictive than state law in the areas it chooses
to exclude from destination resort siting through the mapping process.
The Board of Gatmty Commissioner-s has detefmined that it should pfoeeed to iinplement Goal. 8
manner- eensistent Goal 8 and state law that will allow pfopesed desfination fesaAs to apply
appfokel. Beeause of the Gotifity's need as pat4 of pefiodie review to update its eompfA.ensive plan and
implement Goal 8 in a phased fashion. MeEwdingly, the County has fifst eonsidefed siting destination
. land,
(2) iffiglited.-F-FU
,
, the County will eensidEm- development of destiiiation feseJ4.s
Notwithstanding the phased appfoaeh to destination fesoi4 Foning, it is ft- develop siting
lands not eonsidefed in the Fifst mapping phase afe eensidefed., stieh refinement.,,, n be made at ffie time.
(Ord. 201.0-024 §1, 2010, Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
23.84.020. Goals.
1. To provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning
Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development,
and in a manner that will maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or
endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands.
2. To provide a process for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands that have been mapped by
Deschutes County as eligible for this purpose.
3. To provide for the siting of destination resort facilities that enhance and diversify the recreational
opportunities and economy of Deschutes County.
PAGE 2 OF 5 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-024
4. To provide for development of destination resorts consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in a
manner that will ensure the resorts are supported by adequate transportation facilities.
(Ord. 2010-024 1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
23.84.030. Policies.
1. Destination resorts shall only be allowed within areas shown on the ``Deschutes Countv Destination
Resort ..._7Mao".._an_d when the resort complies with _tlae._requ remenas of Goal 8, ORS 197.435 to
197.46, and Deschutes County Code 18.113.
2. Applications to amend the map will be collected and will be processed concurrently no sooner
than 30 months from the date the map was previously adopted or amended.
Mapping for destination resort siting.
a. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide
Planning Goals, destination resorts shall pursuant to Goal 8 not be sited in Deschutes County in
the following areas:
1. Within 24 air miles of an urban gE_ th boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or
more _unless residential „.uses are limited to those necess_.. for_the._staff_and,mana ement of
. g
the resort;
2. On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and
mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land within a High-
Value Crop Area;
3. On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an
approved Goal exception;
4. On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan where all
conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resourcgpi~ateeted in spite o
identified eenfliefing uses (23A" sites designated pufstiant to OAR 660 16 0
5. Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 and as further refined through
development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement.
i. Tumalo deer winter range;
ii. Portion of the Metoli.us deer A-inter range;
iii. Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican;
6. Sites less than 160 acres.
b. ,
e. Fedefal lands not other-wise exeluded undef these poheies shall not be fnffpt)ed with the DR
with these poheies and mapped as meilable fbf destination r-eseT-t deverlopm To assure that
resort development does not conflict with Oregon Revised Statute, destination resorts shall not
be sited in Deschutes County , in Areas of Critical. State Concern.
c.. To assure that resort development._does not conflict with the objectives of Deschutes Count
destination resorts shall also not be located in the following areas:
1. Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown. on the Wildlif..e Combining
Lone, that the County has chosen p protect:
i_. Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican;
ii. Elk Habitat Area; and
iii. Deer Winter Range;
2. Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South County
Regional Problem Solving Group;
PAGE 3 OF 5 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-024
3. Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C)_
4. Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
5. Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFLJ) having _4_0 or greater contiguous acres in
irrigation;
6. Non.-contiguous EFU.acres _in the same owrrership_havi_rlg_60_or neater irri ratg ed acres;,
7. Faun or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries;
8. Lands designated. Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145;
9. Platted sub.......... isions-,..
d. For those lands not located in any of the areas designated in 3)(a) though (c) destination
resorts may, pursuant to Goal 8, Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County zoning code be
sited in the following areas:
I: Forest Use 2 (F.-2)1_Multiplc. Use Agriculture ((MUA-:1. and RLiral.Residential (RR-10).
zones;
2. UnirrigatedF.,xclusive Farm Use (EFU) land;
3. Irrigated lands zoned EFIJ having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation-,
4. Non-contiguous irrigated EFt.J acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated
acres.;
5. All property within a subdivision for which cluster development approval was obtained
prior to 1990, for which the original cluster development approval designated at least 50
percent_of the deyelopment_as open space and._which ._waswithin the destination resort
zone prior to the effective date of Ordinance 201.0-024•
6. Minimum site of 1.60 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownershi.s-
e. The County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the County.
Such map shall become part of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and shall be an
overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR).
24. Ordinance provisions.
a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent land
uses through enactment of land use regulations that, at a minimum, provide for the following:
1. Maintenance of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered
species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within
100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and
2. Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or
minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects on
intensive farming operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order to
adequately assess the effect on the transportation system notice and the opportunity for
comment shall be provided to the relevant road authority.
3.: Such regulations may allow for alterations to important natural features, including
placement of structures, provided that the overall values of the feature are maintained.
b. Minimum measures to assure that design and placement of improvements and activities will
avoid or minimize the adverse effects noted in Policy 4CajSkb) shall include:
1. The establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses,
including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fenced, berms, landscaped areas, and
other similar types of buffers.
2. Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses.
c. The County may adopt additional land use restrictions to ensure that proposed destination
resorts are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the site and surrounding land uses.
d. Uses in destination resorts shall be limited to visitor- oriented accommodations, overnight
lodgings, developed recreational facilities, commercial uses limited to types and levels
necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the resort, and uses consistent with preservation and
maintenance of open space.
PAGE 4 OF 5 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-024
e. The zoning ordinance shall include measure that assure that developed recreational facilities,
visitor-oriented accommodations and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are
physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent
financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developments,
developed recreational facilities and other key facilitated intended to serve a particular phase
shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding.
b. The County shall identify eountywide any lands exeluded by Geal 4.oem... deslination FeSE-)f.l.'
, 23 Q
L,UBA 476, affifined, 1.5 Of App 621. (1992)~ land withifi flifee failes of the eetinvy befdef shall
adequate to detefmine whethef an), land in Desehutes County is within three miles of a high
Th
C
t
h
ll
l
d
il
bl
f
d
ti
ti
4
iti
i
h
d
T
e.
e
oun
y s
a
C
t
h
ll fi
t
fnflp
an
s ava
a
e
ef
es
na
on fesei
s
ng
n a
id
i
i
t
d EFU l
d
d i
i
t
d EFU l
p
ase
sequeiiee.
d
h
i
th
40
oun
y s
a
fs
eons
er- un
ff
ga
e
an
s an
n
ga
e
an
s
av
ftg
ef
an
h
h !
-
d
1146~
ti.
t
fl
i
l
d
d f
d
r
a
t
i
ti
d
th
h
i
w
ere sue
a
n
s
d G
l
S
Eire, no
e
ief w
se exe
u
e
rom
es
ffl
fl-
sef
s
ng. un
ef
ese pe
e
es
an
oa
.
pefiodie Fe-view,
l
d
Al
the Getinty shall eansidef to what &itent destination
d f
14
t
Fi
ll
ft
th
G
t
h
feseAs fney be sited on
l
t
d
14
t
d
an
s pfesef
y z
ufs
ient te
efi
one
ef
es
uses.
na
y, a
er-
e
oan
y
as
di
i
w
th
C
t
h
ll
id
t
h
t
t
A d
eamp
e
e
a
m s
u
y
ti
ti
t
b
p
t
p
e
e fev
e
,
e
oun
y s
a
eons
er-
o w
e
exr
er
e
s
na
on r-esof
s may
e
sited on FFU lan
A
t
th
l
ds not eonsidefed duf.ing th.e fifst phase of implementat
d
t
id
d i
thi
fi
t
h
f d
ti
tk
ion of Go
t
i
d
s
o
ese
a
ii
s no
eens
er-e
n
s
rs
p
ase o
es
na
e
2
d
h
i
thi
i
t
feWf
ffiRpp
Rg Effi
h
s
s
an
_
er-e
fl, no
ng
ii
e .
e
th
C
t
'
id
ti
i
th
ft4
t
l
th
h l
d
l
ld b
d
il
bl
f
e
oun
y
s eeii.
s
efa
on
n
e
we as
o w
ie
ef sue
an
s s
aou
e ma
e ava
a
e
ef
i
s
ma
make afflend
w
m
t
t
th
h
i
l
d
i
-
t
dd
dditi
l
t
y
the destinatioii r-e
en
s
o
e eointme
ens
ve p
aii an
zon
ng t
flaps
o
soi4 map.
a
a
ona
afeas
o
(Orc..... 2Q l_0-024 1., 2010.z._Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
PAGE 5 OF 5 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-024
FINDINGS
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) held public hearings on January 20,
March 1, April 5, and April 19, 2010 on Ordinance Nos. 2010-024 and 2010-025 to consider
legislative plan amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapters 22.23 and 23.84.' The
Board closed the hearing to oral testimony, but left the written record open until Monday, May
24, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The Board began deliberations on May 24. On June 7, the Board
conducted the first and second reading by title only and adopted both ordinances, declaring it an
emergency. However, the adoption of the two ordinances on June 7 was not done properly.2
Because the amendment was not read out loud in full by the Board, the ordinance is not legally
adopted. It was placed on the June 9 business meeting agenda as an addition in order to rectify
this procedural issue. On June 9, the Board repealed Ordinances Nos. 2010-024 and 2010-025
and scheduled a public hearing for June 30 to take testimony on the County's proposed
destination resort remapping criteria and procedures. The Board closed the hearing to oral
testimony, but left the written record open until Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. The Board
began deliberations on July 7 and on July 14, adopted both ordinances by emergency.
BACKGROUND
Initiated by staff at the request of the Board and further modified by the Deschutes County
Planning Commission, Plan Amendment 2009-3 and Text Amendment 2009-9 encompassed in
Ordinances Nos. 2010-024 and 2010-025 create a process and criteria the County will follow to
change its destination resort map. The two ordinances modify DCC Chapter 23.84, Destination
Resort Goals and Policies, and DCC Chapter 22.23, Destination Resort Map Amendment
Procedures by:
• Listing clear and objective mapping criteria for areas that are ineligible for siting destination
resorts;
• Listing clear and objective mapping criteria for areas that are eligible for siting destination
resorts; and,
• Describing the process for amending Deschutes County's Destination Resort Map.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendments create a process and criteria the County will follow to change
its destination resort map. The proposed text amendments are outlined in the attached exhibits
and underlined for new language and shown as stMkethreugh for deleted language.
1 A tax bill insert, complying with Ballot Measure 56 announced the first evidentiary hearing with the
planning commission on November 19, 2009. It was distributed in mid-October to all property owners in
Deschutes County. The Board hearing was noticed as required in DCC 22.12.020.
2 ORS 203.045 states: "(6) An ordinance adopted after being read by title only may have no legal effect if
it differs substantially from its terms as it is thus filed prior to the reading, unless each section
incorporating such a difference, as finally amended prior to being adopted by the governing body, is read
fully and distinctly in open meeting of that body."
Page 1 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Planning Commission on December 2 closed the public hearing,
deliberated and recommended that the Board adopt the above referenced ordinances, with the
following refinements included in the recommendations:
A. A deadline, to be determined by the Board for submitting map amendment applications.
B. A grandfather clause allowing existing mapped properties to remain on the map
regardless qualify under - ILah s , nc 2nv 11 v cl giblllty criteria. The clause,which
If they uG not u w iu i'"v', ~ n
has the same deadline as map amendment applications (see A above)
requires property owners to submit a written request specifying that they want the
existing resort designation to remain. The grandfathered designation will expire however,
for those that fail to submit a request by the established deadline.
C. Applicants adding properties to the map must demonstrate consistency with the
Transportation Planning Rule, Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0060.3
D. Text further clarifying Deschutes County's acknowledged Goal 5, Natural Resources,
Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces program in relationship to the siting of
destination resorts.
E. Multiple property owners that are contiguous and total 160 acres or greater become
eligible for adding lands to the destination resort map.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Two ordinances, Ordinance No. 2010-024 and 2010-025 are adopted. Both create a process
and criteria Deschutes County will follow to change its destination resort map. The plan
amendment embodied in Ordinance No. 2010-024 relates to eligibility criteria, and 2010-025 to
map amendment procedures. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or
23 for reviewing a legislative plan amendment. Nonetheless, because this is a Deschutes
County initiated plan amendment, the County bears the responsibility for justifying that the
amendments are consistent with the statewide planning goals and Deschutes County's
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS
Statewide Planning Goals.
The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate factual
base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide Goal 1, Citizen
Involvement, Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Goal 8, Recreation, Goal 12, Transportation, Oregon
Revised Statute (ORS), case law, and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The following
findings demonstrate that the two ordinances comply with applicable statewide planning goals
and state law. Statewide Goal 1 was met through this adoption process because these
amendments had two public hearings, one before the County Planning Commission, the
County's citizen review board for land use matters, and one before the Board. Goal 2 was met
3 http://www.publications.ood.state.or.us/Al42351.htm. This change complies with new case law,
Willamette Oaks LLC v. City of Eugene and Goodpasture Partners, LL C, issued by the Oregon Court of
Appeals on November 18, 2009.
Page 2 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
because ORS 197.455(2) allows for such an amendment process and these new code
provisions will be the framework for all future decisions on where to allow destination resorts in
this county. Additionally, the amendments mirror the statutory requirements that destination
resorts not be sited on specific types of farm and forest land, Open Space and Conservation
zoned land, and in areas where wildlife is protected. Thus, the provisions will not conflict with
Goals 3 through 5.
As for the County's Goal 5 historic resources, the County's regulations already require
preservation of those sites regardless of the use proposed for any given property. As for Goals
6 and 7, the County has other code provisions in the destination resort zoning code, DCC
Chapter 18.113 that are designed to protect the air, water and land resources quality and to
assure that they are not approved in areas subject to natural resources and natural hazards.
Goal 8 specifies the rural areas consisting of agricultural, forest, rural development, and natural
resources that are eligible for siting destination resorts.4 Lastly, according to the
Comprehensive Plan, the numerous beneficial impacts of destination resorts are recognized by
Statewide Planning Goal 8 and by implementing statutes. The new provisions comply with Goal
9 as they will expand the opportunities for more destination resorts, which are a source of
economic development by providing jobs in the construction and service industries. In fact, as
described in the findings below, the initial reason decades ago the legislature allowed
destination resorts in rural areas was to provide a means of economic development particularly
in areas such as Central Oregon where farm and forest lands were not as productive as other
areas in the state. Although the County is generally not subject to Goal 10, these destination
resorts do provide additional housing, albeit, generally higher end housing. Goal 11 is not
applicable to destination resorts because destination resorts are specifically allowed urban-type
services such as sewer and water. New case law pertaining to Goal 12 requires a map
amendment to demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Plan Rule. Refer to Footnotes
#2 and #10 for more context.
Goal 13 is also addressed through the destination resort zoning code, DCC Chapter 18.113.
This specific chapter requires destination resorts during the conceptual master plan (CMP)
process to prepare utility and water conservation plans.5 Furthermore, the planning director or
hearings body during the CMP process must find that the minimum dimensional standards are
adequate to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan relating to solar access (DCC
18.113.060(6)(1)). Goal 14 is not applicable to destination resort map amendments because,
while destination resorts are built and operated much like an urban area could be, they are
specifically allowed in rural areas with some additional requirements. Goals 15 through 19 are
not applicable to any amendments to the County's comprehensive plan because the county has
none of those types of lands. The eighth finding below further substantiates that the text
amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Destination Resort Map Amendment / Oregon Revised Statute
Originally, an acknowledged destination resort map could only be amended during a state
periodic review process. Deschutes County started its periodic review in 1988 and completed it
on January 23, 2003. In 2003, the Oregon Legislature amended ORS 197.629(3) exempting
counties from periodic review, excluding portions of its population within the urban growth
boundary (UGB) of a city. New language was added to ORS 197.455(2) in that same session
allowing counties to remap, not more frequently than once every thirty (30) months.6
4 http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/does/goals/goal8.pdf
5 DCC 18.113.050(B)(5) and (11c)
6 httD://www.lea.state.or.us/ors/197.html
Pace 3 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
Remapping is now dependent on creating a process for collecting and processing all map
amendments made within a thirty (30) month planning period.
3. Destination Resorts / Statewide Provisions
Initially, destination resorts were not allowed on rural lands in Oregon without an "exception" to
the statewide planning goals that limit development on farm or forest land. However, several
large resort developments preceded the statewide land use planning system, including Black
Butte, Sunriver, and Inn of 71h Mountain/Widgi Creek. In 1981, Governor Atiyeh's Task Force on
Land Use Planning recommended that destination resorts be allowed as an economic
development tool in rural areas, with certain sideboards to limit their effects and ensure that
their main focus would be overnight lodging rather than second home development. The
provisions authorizing the siting of destination resorts outside UGBs without taking exceptions to
statewide planning goals were adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) in 1984 as amendments to Statewide Planning Goal 8. However, in 1987
the entire content of Goal 8 was added to state law (ORS 197.435 - 197.465), at the request of
destination resort interests.'
4. Deschutes County Destination Resort Chapter
A destination resort chapter was added to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan in 1992
at the request of Eagle Crest Resort.8 Table 1 lists the mapping criteria used by the County to
determine resort eligibility. Under state law, destination resorts are only allowed on a county's
destination resort map. As demonstrated in Table 1, the County supplemented the state's
criteria by excluding large agricultural and forest parcels, and resource lands within one mile of
a UGB.9 The mapping was done in a phased sequence, based on pending farm and forest
studies. Additionally, as a result of a court case, lands within three miles of the county border
were also excluded since most of the lands in Jefferson and Crook counties had not yet been
evaluated. At that time, it could not be demonstrated they contained high value crop areas
excluded by Statewide Planning Goal 8 and ORS. If a property was not excluded from the map
by state or county criteria, it was automatically designated beginning in 1992 on Deschutes
County's Destination Resort overlay map.
Agenda Item 4, October 15, 2008 LCDC Meeting - Informational Briefing and Public Hearing Regarding
Destination Resorts.
8 http://www co deschutes or us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%2023.84.doc
9 Destination Resort Legislative History: Ordinance Nos. 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, 92-029, 92-030, 92-031,
92-032, 93-029, 93-030, 93-031, and 2001-019.
Page 4 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
Table 1 - Deschutes County Destination Resort Map Criteria (1992)
Agency
State of Oregon I 'n n
Deschutes County
Criteria
Excluded Lands
• Within 24 air miles of UGB 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.
• 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 predecessor agency.
• On a site within 3 miles of a high value crop area unless the resort
complies with the requirements of ORS '197.445 (6) in which case the
resort may not be closer to a high value crop area than 1/2 - mile for each
25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof.
• On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as
determined by the State Forestry Department, which are not subject to
an approved goal exception.
• In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife in July 1984 or as designated in
acknowledged comprehensive plan.
• All resource (farm and forest) lands within one mile of a UGB.
• Irrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands greater than 40 acres of
contiguous irrigation under one ownership.
• Irrigated EFU lands greater than 60 acres of non-contiguous land in the
same ownership.
• All Forest Use 1(F-1) zoned property.
• Wildlife: a) Tumalo & Metolius deer winter range; b) antelope winter
range east of Bend; c) antelope winter range near Millican; d) elk range;
e) sage grouse range.
Included Lands
• Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural
Residential (RR-10) zones.
• Unirrigated EFU lands.
• Irrigated EFU lands less than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one
ownership.
Irrigated EFU lands with 60 acres or less of non-contiguous land in the
same ownership.
Today, there are 112,448 acres in Deschutes County mapped for destination resorts. A vast
majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are irreversibly committed to
platted subdivisions, rural residential development or small lots. Notable statistics include:
• 10% of mapped area (10,931 acres) is developed or planned as a destination resort or
resort community (Sunriver, Black Butte, Inn of 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek); and,
54% of mapped area (60,175 acres) contains properties less than 160 acres, including
several platted subdivisions.
10 See footnote #5. ORS 197.435 to 197.467
Page 5 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
5. Ordinance 2010-024 / Destination Resort Goals and Policies
Ordinance 2010-024 amends the Comprehensive Plan, DCC Chapter 23.84, to include new
goals and policies that describe the areas that are eligible and ineligible for siting a destination
resort. The criteria noted in Table 2 demonstrates that the new provisions provide clear and
objective mapping criteria.
Paqe 6 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
Table 2 - Map Eligibility Criteria
Ineligible Lards
A
0
U
m
s
U
U)
m
0
Destination resorts shall not be sited in Deschutes County in the following areas:
• 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;
• On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified
and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land
within a High-Value Crop Area;
• On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to
an approved Goal exception;
• On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan,
where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource
• In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by ODFW in July
1984 or designated in an acknowledged Comp Plan.
i. Tumalo deer winter range;
ii. Portion of the Metolius deer winter range;
iii. Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican
• Sites less than 160 acres
• Areas of Critical State Concern.
• Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife
Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect:
i. Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican;
ii. Elk Habitat Area; and
iii. Deer Winter Range
• Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South
County Regional Problem Solving Group;
• Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C);
• Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
• Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous
acres in irrigation;
• Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated
acres;
Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries;
Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145;
Platted subdivisions;
Eligible Lands
For those lands not located in any of the areas identified as ineligible, destination
resorts may be sited in the following areas:
• Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR-
10) zones;
• Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land;
• Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation;
• Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60
irrigated acres;
• All property within a subdivision for which cluster development approval was
obtained prior to 1990, for which the original cluster development approval
designated at least 50 percent of the development as open space and which was
within the destination resort zone prior to the effective date of Ordinance 2010-024
shall remain on the eligibility map
Parcel Size
• Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships
Page 7 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
6. Ordinance 2010-025 / Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures
Ordinance 2010-025 amends the County's procedural code, DCC Chapter 22.23, to include new
destination resort map amendment procedures, summarized in Table 3, that describe the
process for submitting a map amendment application.
Table 3 - Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures
_
Procedures
The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility
map") may be amended as follows:
• All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than
once every 30 months.
• The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be the first Tuesday in
September by 5:00 p.m..
• Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84.030(3)(x),
23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d) will remain on the eligibility map if
property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County Community Development
Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday in January at 5:00 p.m. to remain
eligible.
• In addition to any other county code provision regarding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the
next 30-month period for amendments to the eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish a
notice announcing opportunities for property owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility
map.
• Property owners must file applications for an eligibility map amendment prior to the last day of
the 30-month period by 5:00 p.m.
• Any additional applications filed after the deadline in DCC 22.23.010(C) will be processed at
the end of the next 30-month cycle.
• Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be
initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall:
1. Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the
property owner as defined herein to make the application;
2. Be completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director;
3. Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of
County Commissioners;
4. Include documentation that demonstrates compliance with DCC 23.84.030(3)(x),
23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d),-
5. For applications adding properties to the eligibility map, the applicant will be required to
demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660-012-0060."
• The planning director shall retain any applications received prior to the expiration of the 30-
month period.
• Multiple applications shall be consolidated.
• The planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning commission or hearings
officer after the expiration of the 30-month period-
" See note 2. Willamette Oaks LLC v City of Eugene and Goodpasture Partners, LL C, issued by the
Oregon Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009 requires a local plan amendment to demonstrate
consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule. Deschutes County
fulfills this obligation as cited in Table 3 above and specifically, Ordinance No. 2010-025, Exhibit A, DCC
22.23.010(G)(5).
Page 8 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024
Formal Map Amendments
Because ORS 197.455(2) allows destination resort map amendments only every 30 months, the
Board finds a need to establish deadlines for map amendment applications and a grandfather
clause that allows existing mapped properties to remain on the map regardless of whether they
do or do not qualify under the new, 2010 eligibility criteria.
Thus, the new provisions in DCC 22.23.010(B) and, (C) state:
(B) The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be the first
Tuesday in September by 5:00 p.m.
(C) Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC
23.84.030(3)(x), 23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d) will remain on the
eligibility map if property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County
Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday in
January at 5:00 p.m.
Consistency with Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Deschutes County's Destination Resort Goal, DCC 23.84.020, provides for development of
destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that will
be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that will
maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or endangered species,
streams, rivers and significant wetlands. As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and cited in
Ordinance 201.0-024, Exhibit A, Deschutes County's proposed eligibility criteria continue to
protect certain agricultural and forest lands, and acknowledged Goal 5 natural resources. As
discussed above, these new provisions were designed to comply with the statewide planning
goals. Therefore, because the County's comprehensive plan was adopted to comply with those
goals and had been acknowledged as such, the new provisions also comply with the County's
comprehensive plan policies and goals, which are rarely more restrictive than the statewide
planning goals.
Additionally, Ordinance 2010-025, Exhibit A, proposes a grandfathered clause for existing
mapped properties to remain on the map regardless if they do not qualify under the new, 2010
eligibility criteria. Even these grandfathered properties, if so chosen to remain mapped, are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing destination resort map is
acknowledged by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.12 Map
amendments represent only the first of several steps for a property to become entitled and
developed as a destination resort. The Deschutes County Destination Resort Combining Zone,
DCC 18.113 specifies an extensive burden of proof for an applicant seeking conceptual master
plan as well as final master plan approval. That chapter was found years ago to be in
compliance with the County's comprehensive plan and, as stated above, provides many of the
protections required by the County's Comprehensive Plan policies.
12 See Finding #2, page 3.
Page 9 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-024