HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 003 - Dest Resort AmendmentDeschutes 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 May 6, 2013
DATE: April 30, 2013
FROM: Will Groves CDD Phone # 541-388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-003
Amending Deschutes County Code 19.04.040 and 19.106.060(D), to Change the Ratio of Overnight to
Residential Units in Destination Resorts, and Declaring an Emergency.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Weston Investment Co. LLC has applied for text amendments to the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to
change the ratio of required overnight lodging to residential units for Destination Resorts in the Bend
Urban Area, case file Text Amendment (TA)-12-3. The Board held a public hearing on April 15, 2013
and Board verbally approved this proposal.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion 1: Approval of first and second reading of Ordinance 2013-003 by title only, then,
Motion 2: Adoption of Ordinance 2013-003.
ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, Laurie Craghead
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Will Groves, Legal
REVIEWED
LE~iJN'SEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code *
19.04.040 and 19.106.060(D), to Change the Ratio of * ORDINANCE NO. 2013-003
Overnight to Residential Units in Destination Resorts. *
WHEREAS, Weston Investment Co. LLC applied for a text amendment to Deschutes County Code
("DCC") Title 19, Section 19.04.040, Definitions and Section 19.106.060(D), Standards for Destination Resorts,
to change the ratio of overnight to residential units in destination resorts; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
February 14, 2013 before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and, on February 28,2013 the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public
hearing on April 15, 2013 and concluded that the proposed changes are consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan and that the public will benefit from changes to the land use regulations; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 19.04.040, Definitions, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"A", attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set
forth in strikethrol:lgn.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 19.106.060(D), Standards for Destination Resorts, is
amended to read as described in Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined and deleted language set forth in strikethrol:lgh.
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its fmdings in support of this decision, Exhibit "C",
attached and incorporated by reference herein.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 -ORDINANCE NO. 2013-003
Section 4. EMERGENCY. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate prese ation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance takes ffect
on its passage.
Dated this ___ ___~2013 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ALAN UNGER, Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary TONY DEBONE, Commissioner
Date of 1SI Reading: day ____->2013.
Date of 2nd Reading: day _____, 2013.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
Tony DeB one
Effective date: __day _____,2013.
PAGE 2 OF 2 -ORDINANCE NO. 2013-003
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
**** Denotes text not amended by Ordinance 2013-003
19.04.040. Definitions.
****
"Destination resort" means a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented accommodations
and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a “large
destination resort” under Goal 8, a proposed development must meet the following standards:
A. The resort is located on a site of 160 or more acres;
B. At least 50 percent of the site is dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets, and
parking areas;
C. A least $7 million (in 1993 dollars) shall be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational
facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and
roads. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities, and;
D. Visitor-oriented accommodations are provided, including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for
100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodgings. Accommodations available for
residential use shall not exceed two and one-half such units for each unit of overnight lodging.
However, the rentable units overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows:
1. A total of 150 units of overnight lodging shall be provided as follows:
a. At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned homes, lots or
units shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial
assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units, and;
b. The remainder of the overnight-lodging units shall be provided as individually owned lots or
units subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to overnight lodging units. The deed
restrictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight
lodging as required by DCC 19.04.040.
2. The number of units approved for residential sale within the resort shall be not more than two and
one-half units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under DCC
19.04.040(D)(1)(a).constructed or financially assured, and;
3. The development approval shall provide for the construction of other required overnight-lodging
units within five years of the initial lot sales.
E. Commercial uses allowed are limited to those types and levels necessary to meet the needs of visitors to
the development. Industrial uses of any kind are not permitted.
****
(Ord. 2013-013 §1; Ord. 99-001 §§2-4, 1999; Ord. 97-038 §1, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §1, 1996; Ord. 96-071
§1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §15, 1995; Ord. 94-027 §§1 & 2, 1994; Ord. 92-043 §1, 1992; Ord. 91-029 §§1, 8,
9 and 10, 1991; Ord. 91-001 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-038 §1, 1990; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990; Ord. 88-042 §3, 1988;
Ord. 86-058 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-055 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-033 §1, 1983; Ord. 86-032 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-017 §1
Exhibit a, 1986; Ord. 830945 §1, 1983; Ord. 83-041 §2, 1983; Ord. 80-217 §1 Exhibit A, 1980)
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
19.106.060. 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 lodging;
2. Visitor-oriented eating establishments for at least 100 persons and meeting rooms which provide
eating for at least 100 persons;
3. At least $7 million shall be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facilities and
visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and roads.
Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. The
spending minimums provided for are stated in 1993 dollars; and
4. The facilities and accommodations required by this DCC 19.106.060 must be physically provided
or financially assured pursuant to DCC 19.106.110 prior to closure of sales, rental or lease of any
residential dwellings or lots.
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, county, or city arterial or collector roadway,
as designated by the Bend Urban Area General 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 19.76.080 shall not be
considered open space; and
2. Individually-owned residential units shall not exceed two and one-half such units for each unit of
visitor-oriented overnight lodging constructed or financially assured within the resort. Individually-
owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental
use by the general public for at least 45 weeks per calendar year through one or more central
reservation and check-in service(s).
E. Phasing. A destination resort authorized pursuant to DCC 19.106.060 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 19.106 and Goal 8;
2. The first phase and each subsequent phase of the destination resort shall cumulatively meet the
minimum requirements of DCC 19.106.060 and DCC 19.76.070, and;
3. Each phase may include two or more distinct non-contiguous areas within the destination resort.
F. 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 19.88.210 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 Bend Urban Area General Plan relating to solar access, fire protection,
vehicle access, and to protect resources identified by LCDC Goal 5 which are identified in the Bend
Urban Area General Plan. At a minimum, a 100 foot setback shall be maintained from all streams
and rivers. No lot for a single-family residence shall exceed an overall project average of 22,000
square feet in size.
2. Exterior setbacks and buffers.
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
a. A destination resort shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of buffers between the
resort and adjacent land uses, including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fences,
berms, landscaped areas, and other similar types of buffers.
b. Exterior setbacks shall also be provided to ensure that improvements and activities are located
to minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands.
G. Floodplain requirements. The Flood Plain Zone (FP) requirements of DCC 19.72 shall apply to all
developed portions of a destination resort in an FP Zone in addition to any applicable criteria of DCC
19.106. Except for flood plain areas which have been granted an exception to LCDC goals 3 and 4,
Flood Plain 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. Open space requirements.
A conservation easement as described in DCC Title 19 shall be conveyed to the County for all areas
within a flood plain which are part of a destination resort.
H. 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 19.
I. Time share units not included in the overnight lodging calculations shall be subject to approval under
the conditional use criteria set forth in DCC 19.100. 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 19.100.
(Ord. 2013-003 §1; Ord. 99-001 §1, 1999)
Findings for Ordinance No. 2013-003
Change to the Ratio of Overnight to Residential Units in
Destination Resorts in the Bend Urban Area
1. Introduction
The Applicant, Weston Investment Company, LLC proposed minor amendments to
destination resort chapter of Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). Chapter 19.1
governs resorts within the Urban Area Reserve ("UAR"). The applicant owns property wit in
the Tetherow resort, which is the only destination resort currently entitled within the Urban ea
Reserve. The amendments to DCC 19.106 change the ratio of residential units to overni. t
lodging units within a resort from 2: 1 to 2-112: 1, as allowed by the associated provisions of the
Oregon Revised Statutes and Statewide Planning Goal 8. Overnight lodging units, as defined py
DCC 19.04, include "permanent, separately rentable accommodations that are not available for
residential use," or individually-owned residential units if such units are available for rental by
the general public for 45 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and checkjin
service.
ORS 197.445(4)(b)(E) governs the ratio between residential units for sale and overnight lodgi g
units for rental in eastern Oregon as follows: "The number of units approved for residential s Ie
may not be more than 2-1/2 units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided un er
this paragraph." Statewide Planning Goal 8 also contains this ratio (OAR 660-015-0000(8 ).
DCC 19.106 currently contains the ratio adopted with the original resort statutes (2:1). Althou
the Legislature subsequently changed the ratio to 2-1/2:1, Deschutes County has not yet adoptbd
the new ratio. In order to update the mix of uses authorized within the Tetherow destination
resort, the Applicant proposes minor amendments to DCC 19.106 to adopt the 2-1/2 to 1 ratio .et
forth in ORS 197.445 and Goal 8. .
The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a hearing on TA-12-3 on February 14,203,
and held the record open for a period of seven days. The Planning Commission held anot er
hearing on February 28,2013 and at that hearing voted 4 to 3 in favor of forwarding TA-12-3 to
the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (the "Board") with a recommendation of
approval. The Board held a hearing on April 15, 2013, received oral testimony from
applicant and Paul Dewey on behalf of Central Oregon Landwatch.
The Board voted 3-0 in favor of approving TA-12-3 pursuant to an emergency clause.
Board adopted the amendments pursuant to the emergency clause for two primary reasons. FirSt,
the applicant cannot file CMP and FMP amendments until the ordinance is effective. The Bo~rd
recognizes that the applicant. is eager to modify the CMP and amend the existing improvem~t
agreement to establish long-term certainty with respect to the total number of overnight units
t e
. e
Page 1 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
e
required and the associated bonding obligations. The Board believes that by providing long-t
certainty with respect to the number of overnight units at Tetherow is in the best interest of
County, and that it is best to resolve that issue as soon as reasonably practical. Second, e
Board recognizes that any amendment to the CMP or FMP is subject to appeal. Were t e
amendments to be effective in 90 days, any appeal of the CMP or FMP could result in a loss of
the next building season while the applications are on appeal. The Board concludes t at
construction of overnight units sooner rather than later is in the best interest of the County d
that a delay of90 days could negatively impact the ability to construct overnight units during t e
next building season. Such a delay could then delay the potential for more influx of touri$m
dollars to the County. For these reasons, the Board has elected to adopt Ordinance 2013-003 by
emergency.
2. Text Amendments to Dee 19.04 and 19.106
The amendments to DCC 19.04 and DCC 19.106 are set forth below. Additions are marked in
underline text, and deletions are marked in strikethi=o'l:lgh text.
A. Dee 19.04.040, Defmitions
DCC 19.04.040 contains several definitions relating to the siting of destination resorts un er
Chapter DCC 19.106. To adopt the new ratio set forth in state law, the County has adopted t e
definition of "destination resort" as follows:
"Destination resort" means a self-contained development that provides for visit r
oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with hi
natural amenities. To qualify as a "large destination resort" under Goal 8, a propos
development must meet the following standards:
A. The resort is located on a site of 160 or more acres;
B. At least 50 percent of the site is dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards,
streets, and parking areas;
C. A least $7 million (in 1993 dollars) shall be spent on improvements for on-s te
developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of co ts
for land, sewer and water facilities and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount sh 1
be spent on developed recreational facilities, and;
D. Visitor-oriented accommodations are provided, including meeting rooms, restaur ts
with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodgin s.
Accommodations available for residential use shall not exceed two and one-half su h
units for each unit of overnight lodging. However, the ren:ta:ble 1:Hlits overni t lod .
units may be phased in as follows:
Page 2 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
e
1. A total of 150 units of overnight lodging shall be provided as follows:
a. At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned hom s,
lots or units-shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equival nt
financial assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units, and;
b. The remainder of the overnight-lodging units shall be provided as individually 0
lots or units subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to overnight lodging units.
deed restrictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of
permanent overnight lodging as required by DCC 19.04.040.
2. The number of units approved for residential sale within the resort shall be not mJre
than two and one-half units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under
DCC 19.04.040(D)(1)(a), and; constructed or financially assured.
3. The development approval shall provide for the construction of other requi*d
overnight-lodging units within five years ofthe initial lot sales.
E. Commercial uses allowed are limited to those types and levels necessary to meet tbe
needs ofvisitors to the development. Industrial uses of any kind are not permitted.
B. DCC 19.106.060. Standards for Destination Resorts
DCC 19.106.060 contains standards governing the construction and operation of resorts. TPe
County has amended DCC 19.106.060(D) to adopt the 2-112:1 ratio set forth in state law, las
shown below.
DCC 19.106.060(D), Minimum Resort Requirements
D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase, meet the followi g
minimum requirements:
I. The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the developm nt
dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas. Porti s
of individual residential lots and landscape area requirements for developed recreatio al
facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations or multi-family or commercial
established by DCC 19.76.080 shall not be considered open space; and
2. Individually-owned residential units shall not exceed two and one-half such units
each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging constructed or financiall -assured wit in
the resort. Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if thpy
are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 45 weeks ~er
calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in service(s).
3. Compliance with DCC 19.116.110, Amendments to Title 19
or
Page 3 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
19.116.010. Amendments.
DCC Title 19 may be amended by changing the boundaries of zones or by
changing any other provisions thereof subject to the provisions ofDCC 19.116.
A. Text changes and legislative map changes may be proposed by the Board of
County Commissioners on its own motion, by the motion of the Planning
Commission, upon payment ofa foe, by the application ofa member ofthe public.
Such changes shall be made pursuant to DCC 22.12 and ORS 215.110 and
215.060.
B. Any proposed quasi-judicial map amendment or change shall be handled in
accordance with the applicable provisions ofDCC Title 22.
That applicant submitted an application for the code amendments pursuant to
19.116.1010(A), and the County processed the amendment consistent with DCC Title 22, as
required by subsection (B). DCC 22.12.010 and .040 require a public hearing before the Planni g
Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners for all legislative changes. D . C
22.12.020 sets forth the basic notice requirements for the hearings. As discussed above, both the
Planning Commission and the Board held the required hearings.
4. Compliance with County Comprehensive Plan and BAGP !I
Both the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Bend Area General Plan (BAG )
contain destination resorts goals and policies. However, neither plan contains any goals r
policies related to the ratio between residential units and overnight lodging units. Rather, t e
Plan and BAGP primarily focus on destination resort mapping and direct the County to adopt
code provisions to implement the siting standards of ORS 197.445 and Goal 8. Therefore, tee
detailed siting standards for resorts in the DAR, including the ratio, are set forth in DCC Title 19.
As a result, there are no plan policies directly applicable to this text amendment, and the
amendments to Title 19 do not require any concurrent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan r
BAGP. The Board therefore finds that no goals or policies of the plan apply to th e
amendments. Further, the Board finds that the amendments are consistent with the Deschu s
County Comprehensive Plan and that the amendments are not inconsistent with any goal r
policy of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
5. Compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals
A. Statewide Planning Goal!, Citizen Involvement
The amendments are consistent with Goal 1 because the County processed the apPlicati!n
consistent with the procedural standards for code amendments. The standards provide for pub ic
comment and hearings, thereby promoting the citizen involvement policies of Goal 1.
B. Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning
Goal 2 requires the County to adopt and maintain land use plans and ordinances to implement the
Goals. The Goal also requires the County to amend the plans and ordinances when appropria,e,
Page 4 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
i
I
following an opportunity for public notice and comment. The amendments are consistent with
Goal 2 because the amendments will update the County's implementing ordinance to make the
overnight lodging ratio in Title 19 consistent with the state land use planning statutes and GOal i 8.
As noted above, the amendments were subject to public review and comment, including pubiic
hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners. .
C. Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4, Agricultural Lands and Forest Lands
Goals 3 and 4 concern agricultural and forest lands. The amendments affect Title 19, whi h
governs the Urban Area Reserve. These lands are not zoned for agricultural or forest u e.
Therefore, because the amendments will change only the UAR chapter of the code, Goals 3 d
4 are not relevant to the amendments.
D. Statewide Plannin Goal 5 Natural Resources Scenic and Historic Are s
Open Spaces
Consistent with Goal 5, DCC 19.106 already requires the preservation of designated Goal 5
resources on any destination resort tract through design techniques, open space dedication, lor
conservation easements. The amendments are focused solely on updating the ratio between
residential units and overnight lodging units, and will not alter how DCC Title 19 complies with
Goal 5. .
E. Statewide Plannin Goal 6 Air Water and Land Resources
Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
As with Goal 5, DCC 19.106.070 already contains standards to ensure that destination reso s
within the UAR will protect air, water and land resources. In addition, DCC 19.106.070 al 0
contains standards limiting resort development in areas subject to natural hazards. These siti g
standards require the maintenance of important natural features, including streams, rivers, . d
significant wetlands. The standards also regulate alterations and uses within the 100-year
floodplain and on slopes exceeding 25%, as required by Goals 7 and 8. The amendments to DeC
19.106 will not alter these standards. Rather, the amendments will only update the ratio betweF
residential units and overnight lodging units. Therefore, Title 19 will remain consistent with
Goals 6 and 7.
F. Statewide Planning Goal 8. Recreational Needs
Goal 8 governs recreation, including destination resorts. As explained above, Goal 8 curren ly
contains a 2-1/2: 1 ratio between residential units and overnight lodging units. The amendme ts
will implement this standard, thereby maintaining compliance with Goal 8.
G. Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development
The amendments are consistent with Goal 9 because it is an economic policy of the State pf
Oregon to promote tourism through destination resort development (ORS 197.440(1) and (2}).
The amendments will authorize the mix of residential and overnight lodging uses contemplat~
by ORS 197.445 and Goal 8, thereby ensuring that Title 19 continues to serve its purpose bf
fostering economic development through recreation and tourism.
Page 5 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
I
H. Statewide Planning Goa110, Housing
Destination resorts provide for a variety of housing in a recreational setting. The amendments e
consistent with Goal 10 because they will authorize the ratio of housing types currently allow d
byORS 197.445 and Goal 8.
I. Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services
In its current fonn, Dee 19.106 is consistent with Goal 11 because it requires resorts in the U~
to provide sewer and water facilities at the resort, or to connect to existing facilities if the resort
bears the costs of extension. In addition, the lines extended to the resort must be sized to meet tlte
needs of the resort only. The amendments will not alter compliance with Goal 11 because they
do not change any code or plan standards regarding public facilities. Rather, the amendments
focus solely on bringing the ratio between residential units and overnight lodging units into
compliance with ORS 197.445 and Goal 8. .
J. Statewide Planning Goal12, Transportation
The administrative rules set forth in OAR 660-012 implement Goal 12. A local governm t
must demonstrate compliance with OAR 660-12-0060 (the "Transportation Planning Rule," r
"TPR") when adopting a plan or land use regulation amendment. The TPR requires the 10 al
government to determine whether the amendment would "significantly affect" an existing r
planned transportation facility. If so, the government must put in place measures set forth in t e
rule to address the affects. As detailed below, the minor amendments adopted to change e
overnight lodging ratio from 2:1 to 2-112:1 are consistent with Goal 12 and the TPR because e
amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility.
(1) If an amendment to a fUnctional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, orl a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing pr
planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as
provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3),
(9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affoctsl a
transportation facility ifit would: .
(a) Change the functional classification ofan existing or planned transportation facil ty
(exclusive ofcorrection ofmap errors in an adopted plan);
The amendments will only change the ratio governing the mix of dwelling units within a res rt
and will not change the functional classification of a transportation facility.
(b) Change standards implementing afUnctional classification system; or
The amendments will only change the ratio governing the mix of dwelling units within a resdrt
and will not change the standards implementing a functional classification system. .
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsectitfn
based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified ,n
the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic
projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the
Page 6 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably li it
traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. is
reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect ofthe amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the fimctio al
classification ofan existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance ofan existing or planned transportation facility such tha it
would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive pl In;
or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that. is
otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP pr
comprehensive plan.
The amendments will change the ratio of residential units to overnight lodging units from 2: 1 to
2-1/2:1. This change in itself will not result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) throu
(C) above. Altering the ratio will not authorize greater density or more intense traffic-generati g
uses. Rather, it will simply change the mix of potential dwelling units within a resort.
The density of a resort, and the associated traffic impacts, are governed by the siting
approval criteria already set forth in DCC 19.106. For example, the criteria requiring a resort to
contain 50% open space and to minimize impacts on surrounding lands and affected ro d
systems ultimately dictate the number and density of dwelling units within a resort. It is th se
standards, not the ratio between residential dwellings and overnight lodging units, which sha e
the overall size and potential traffic impacts of a resort. The ratio merely determines how m y
units are available for rental to the general public for a specified number of weeks versus h .w
many individually-owned dwellings are used as permanent units or vacation homes without a
mandated rental schedule. Whether a unit qualifies as an overnight lodging unit does not alter the
trip generation assigned to that unit for purposes of traffic impact analysis. Rather, the trafi;ic
analyses for resorts assign a single trip generation rate to all dwelling units. .
Furthermore, from a practical perspective, the UAR lands that would be affected by this coke
change are quite limited. The UAR contains minimal DR-mapped lands, the majority of which
are concentrated on the west side of Bend. (One small triangular piece ofland along the southern
edge of the City is mapped for resort development, but it is adjacent to a much larger tract f
DR-mapped land outside of the City, which would be subject to DCC Title 18 (not Title 19) i it
were to be developed as a resort). With respect to the properties on the west side of the City, h f
of the acreage is already approved and partially-developed with the Tetherow resort. e
remainder of the acreage (north of Skyliners Road), is mapped but not approved for a reso .
With respect to the undeveloped acreage to the north of Skyliners Road, the maximum dens' y
and associated trips counts for any future resort would be dictated by the existing appro al
criteria in DCC 19.106, as explained above. The new ratio would only change the potential 'x
of residential uses within that overall density, but not the total number of units that co d
generate traffic.
Finally, Tetherow, the only currently entitled resort within the UAR, already has a maximum
density set by its CMP and FMP approvals. (County File Nos. CU-04-94, RC-05-01, M-05-4).
Page 7 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
I
i
Specifically, Tetherow was subject to the West Bend Traffic Consortiwn Developm nt
Agreement, which set a maximwn density and maximwn nwnber of trips for the reso!rt.
(Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2000-034; City of Bend Ordinance No. NS-1757). During the
CMP approval, the developer proposed to construct a total of 889 residential units, and Cou~ty
found that the resort would remain under the authorized density and trip count ifit developed I at
that density. As relevant to the TPR analysis, the County specifically found that development of
the resort at that density would not "significantly affect" a transportation facility. (C P
Decision, File No. CU-04-94, pp. 28-29). In the CMP, the developer proposed to divide t e
residential units as follows: 589 single-family and multi-family dwellings (these units would e
sold and could be rented to the general public, but would not be subject to the overnight lodgi g
restrictions), and 300 overnight lodging units. This division complied with the 2:1 ratio in effi ct
at that time ofCMP approval.
Following the adoption of the code amendments, Tetherow could apply to amend its CMP
FMP to authorize the use of the 2-112: 1 ratio. Tetherow could apply the new ratio in a nwnber of
ways. First, Tetherow could seek to maintain the nwnber of residential units while reducing the
nwnber of overnight units. A reduction in the total nwnber of units would reduce transportati~n
impacts. Second, Tetherow could seek to adjust the nwnber of both residential and overni~t
lodging units, while maintaining the 889-unit maximwn but applying the new ratio. Such an
adjustment would allow 635 single-family and multi-family units, and 254 overnight lodgi~g
units. This would not increase overall density or trip count within the resort, it would oily
change the nwnber of units that are subject to the overnight lodging rental restrictions.
Development Agreement anticipated this type of evolution in the mix of uses as follows:
"4.2 For the purposes of determining the amount and kind of Off-Site Transportati n
Impact Mitigation required of CHLP's Proposed Development and the rights of CH P
vested herein, CHLP agrees that the density of its Proposed Development shall t
exceed 294 single-family dwellings, 198 multi-family dwellings, 96 condominis,
15,000 square feet of retail, 18-hole golf course, 280-room resort hotel and 200-room
conference hotel (collectively, the "Maximum Density"). The Maximwn Density has
been used by the Parties in the supporting Traffic Study to determine the estimat~d
nwnber of vehicle trips to be generated by the Proposed Development. To the extent that
CHLP changes its mix of development to respond to market conditions but does not
increase the number or distribution of estimated vehicle trips, CHLP shall not be deem·
to have exceeded its Maximum Density."
Thus, the Development Agreement contemplated a change in the mix of uses, as would occur if
Tetherow applied the new ratio to alter its residential mix. And, as noted above, the ac al
residential density approved in the CMP (889) was less than the maximwn residential densi y
allowed by the Development Agreement (1,068). Although the Development Agreement h s
expired by its terms, it provided a cap on development, above which additional transportati~n
improvements could have been required. .
The third way in which Tetherow could take advantage of the new ratio is by maintaining t~e
required 300 overnight lodging units and increasing residential density to a maximwn of 7$0
units. Such an application may be impractical due to the fact that little, if any, additio~l
development land is available at Tetherow. Such an application would also be required to
comply with County transportation development standards as part of the CMP amendment. Fpr
I
Page 8 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
the reasons stated below, even this type of CMP amendment which would be permitted by the
present text amendments would not violate the TPR or result in a determination of signifi ant
effects.
The record contains correspondence from the County's senior transportation planner, p. ter
Russell regarding compliance with the TPR. Mr. Russell's comments suggest that ~he
amendments require additional analysis to ensure consistency with the TPR. Additionally,
although not specific, the comments filed by Central Oregon Landwatch also suggest ~at
additional study may be required under the TPR. In response, the Board adopts the following
additional findings:
Unlike Title 18, where density at resorts is capped at 1.5 single-family dwelling units per a e,
there is no maximum density for Title 19 resorts either for single-family dwelling units or
overnight lodging units. The consequence is that under the existing development code a re ort
may develop at whatever density it selects and may add an unlimited number of trips to e
transportation system. As a practical matter, however, density is largely controlled by the siz~ of
the property, open space requirements and other factors. However, because there is I no
maximum density for Title 19 destination resorts, under the existing code, a resort could develop
at 1 unit per acre, 10 units per acre or 100 units per acre. Similarly, a resort could elec~ to
construct 150, 500, 2000 or 20,000 overnight dwelling units. While development of 20,()00
overnight units is hardly practical, for purposes of TPR analysis for these amendments, i~ is
important to note that an applicant has the current right to develop at any density. A a
consequence, an applicant has the current right to add all transportation trips associated ith
such density to the transportation system. The present amendment, which only changes the r tio
between single family and overnight dwelling units does not provide a resort the ability to
develop at any greater density than is already permitted under the code or provide any abilit : to
add trips to the transportation system in addition to what could be added under the current co~e.
Because density is not limited, Tetherow could seek to add residential and overnight lodging
density under the current code and could do so under the amended code. Because under either
version of the code Tetherow has an unlimited ability to add density (and therefore trips to ~e
system), the change in the ratio does not provide the ability to add trips to the system that is 110t
already present. As a result, the amendment will not significantly affect any transportation
facility. Although the TPR may not be triggered by the present amendment, any change to e
CMP will be reviewed under the County's transportation standards to ensure compliance ith
such standards.
The change to the ratio would allow an existing resort to add additional single family dwelli gs
while keeping the overnight dwelling units constant. This change would result in additional 'ps
to the system, but these additional trips do not result in any issue under the TPR.
Page 9 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
The following tables show the different trip generation potential for a 500 overnight lodging rinit
resort under the 2: 1 and 2.5: 1 ratios: .
Overnight
lodging units
Maximum
trip
generation
for overnight
lodging units
ITE 330
.42 PM Peak
Hour
Maximum
number of
SFR units at
2:1 Ratio
Maximum
trip
generation
for SFR
units
ITE 210
1 PM Peak
Hour
Total
number of
PM Peak
Hour trips
I
500 210 1000 1000 1250
Overnight
lodging units
Maximum
trip
generation
for overnight
lodging units
ITE 330
.42 PM Peak
Hour
Maximum
number of
SFR units at
2.5:1 Ratio
Maximum
trip
generation
for SFR
units
ITE 210
1 PM Peak
Hour
Total
number of
PM Peak
Hour trips
i
500 210 1250 1250 1460
The change in the ratio from 2:1 to 2.5:1 could result in an additional 210 trips to the systdn.
For this reason it was suggested that additional analysis under the TPR was warranted. ntis
potential addition of trips to the system, however, does not trigger additional analysis under the
TPR. The reason for this is that under the existing development code, with no change to the
ratio, a resort could add 210, 500 or 1000 additional trips to the system. This could be done ~n
two different ways.
Page 10 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
I
1100
First, the resort could add additional overnight lodging units to resort while keeping the si I e
family dwelling unit count constant:
Maximum TotalI Overnight Maximum I Maximum
lodging units trip number of trip number of
generation 8FR units at generation PM Peak
for overnight for SFR Hour trips2:1 Ratio
lodging units units
ITE 210ITE 330
.42 PM Peak 1 PM Peak
Hour Hour
462 1000 1000 1462
..Under thIs example, the resort has added 252 addItIonal trIps to the system, while maintaining
the same number of single family units. The addition of these trips is permitted under he
existing code. .
Second, the resort could increase both the overnight lodging units and single family dwell~ng
units, while maintaining the 2: 1 ratio:
I Overnight
lodging units
Maximum
trip
generation
for overnight
lodging units
ITE 330
.42 PM Peak
Hour
Maximum
number of
SFR units at
2:1 Ratio
Maximum
trip
generation
for 8FR
units
ITE 210
1 PM Peak
Hour
Total
number of
PM Peak
Hour trips
620 261 1240 1240 1501
The above examples demonstrate that the change to the ratio between overnight lodging its
and single family dwelling units will not result in additional trips to the transportation syst
than are already permitted under the code. An unlimited number of trips could be added to he
system under the existing code. For purposes of the TPR, because resorts may develop at • y
density they may select, and because that density is not affected by the present amendment, the
amendment will not significantly affect any transportation facility. .
Conversely, simply because the amendments are consistent with the TPR does not mean that an
existing resort could avoid demonstrating consistency with County transportation standard~1 at
the time of development or an amendment to a CMP which increases overall density. In eitf1.er
instance, an applicant would be required to comply with all applicable county transportatr.' n
standards. Stated differently, while a CMP or an amendment to a CMP could significantly affi ct
a transportation system and require mitigation, the present amendments to Title 19 do ot
authorize additional trips to the system that could significantly affect a transportation system.
Page 11 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
I
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, the code amendments are consistent with Goal 12
and the TPR because the amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility.
K. Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy Conservation
Goal 13 encourages land development to be managed to maximize the conservation of all fo~1s
of energy, based upon sound economic principals. ORS 197.445 and Goal 8 define a destinati n
resort as a "self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented accommodations d
developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities." Such developm ts
maximize energy efficiency by providing a broad mix of uses within a single developmdnt
(residential, overnight lodging, recreational, dining, etc.) The amendments are consistent w,th
Goal 13 because they continue to promote efficient resort development within the UAR by
updating the overnight lodging ratio in DCC Title 19.
IL. Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization I
I
Goal 14 focuses on the provision of orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land us¢s.
Goal 8 specifically authorizes resorts to be sited on DR-mapped lands without taking ~
exception to several goals, including Goal 14. At the time of the adoption of DCC 19.106, the
County and DLCD determined that it would be consistent with Goal 14 to allow resorts witl1in
certain mapped portions of the UAR. The amendments will not alter DCC 19.106's complianbe
with Goal 14 because the amendments merely change the overnight lodging ratio to match 0 S
197.445 and Goal 8.
M. Statewide Planning Goals 15, 16, 17. 18. and 19
Goals 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 concern resources that are not present within the area affected. y
this amendment (Willamette River Greenway, Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches
and Dune, and Ocean Resources). I
6. Opposition Testimony
The comments filed by Central Oregon Landwatch generally contain policy arguments as to w y
the County should not approve the amendments and suggest that the County adopt additional te t
amendments. The Board declined to adopt the recommended text changes. The only possi Ie
substantive challenge raised by Central Oregon Landwatch is that Goal 12 and TPR requi e
additional transportation analysis. As set forth above, the County has undertaken such additional
analysis and concluded that the amendments do not significantly affect any transportati~n
facilities due to the fact that the amendments will not result in the addition of any additional trips
to the transportation system than are already permitted under the existing code. With or With*i t
the present amendments, the applicant has the ability to add an unlimited number of trips to t e
system. Again, even though the amendments will not significantly affect a transportati n
facility, any amendment to a CMP or a new CMP will require a demonstration with the Count's
transportation standards. I
The comments filed by 1000 Friends of Oregon include no substantive challenge to tJ::te
amendments. Rather, the comments request that the County not adopt the changes because to do
so would "not be good policy." The Board finds that the comments filed by 1000 Friends If
Page 12 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003
Oregon do not provide any basis to conclude that the amendments are inconsistent with any ~e,
law, goal or other applicable standard. .
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Board concludes that the applicant has demonstrated that the amendments to
DCC 19.04 and 19.106 to update the ratio between residential units and overnight lodging un ts
from 2:1 to 2-112:1 is consistent with ORS 197.445, Goal 8, all other applicable Statewi~e
Planning Goals and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
Page 13 of 13 -EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2013-003