HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdnc 001 and 002 - Destination Resort Map AmendmentsDeschutes 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 October 31, 2011
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: October 21, 2011.
FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department 385-1709
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Deliberation and consideration of First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 2011-001 and 2011-002, amending
Titles 18 and 23, to modify Deschutes County Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map, resepctively,
for the areas eligible for the Destination Resort Overlay.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Initiated by staff at the request of the Board of County Commissioners, Ordinance Nos. 2011-001 and
2011-002 designate areas eligible for the Destination Resort Overlay on the Deschutes County
Comprehenisve Plan and Zoning maps, respectively.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion: First reading by Title only of Ordinance Nos. 2011-001 and 2011-002
ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky and Legal Counsel
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Peter Gutowsky, CDD.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 23 of the
Deschutes County Code To Modify the
Deschutes County Destination Resort Map.
r
*
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-001
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") directed the Deschutes County Community
Development Department staff to initiate a Deschutes County Destination Resort Map amendment to cause the
areas with the destination resort designation to comply with the newly adopted Ordinance 2010-024,
amendments to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") DCC Chapter 23.84, Destination Resorts; and
WHEREAS, Pine Forest Development, LLC, Belveron Partners, LLC and Vandevert Road, LLC,
Oregon Department of State Lands applied to have property included on the Deschutes County Destination
Resort Map with the Destination Resort designation; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, public hearings were held on
November 18, 2010, and on January 27, 2011 before the Deschutes County Planning Commission to consider
changes to DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Destination Resort Map; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2011 the Planning Commission forwarded to the Board a recommendation
of approval to adopt changes to the Deschutes County Destination Resort Map for lands designated for
destination resorts; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public
hearing on May 23, June 27, and September 26, 2011 and concluded that the public will benefit from the
changes to the Deschutes County Destination Resort Map; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it in the public interest to adopt amendments to the Destination Resort
Map; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County
Destination Resort Map, is amended to depict the properties eligible for destination resort development as
shown in Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2. The maps attached as Exhibit "A", Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, shall be
known as the "Deschutes County Destination Resort Map".
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-001
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "B,"
which includes Attachment 1, which is a series of parcel based maps, showing grandfathered properties
retaining a destination resort designation, attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Dated this of , 2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice -Chair
Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2011.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2011.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2011.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-001
1
1
1
1
MIN NM
1 11
1
1-
1
17
Tumalo
9
20
NNE MEM
1
Sunriver
1
23
r--
1 1
1 27 26
1 1
1 1
28 1 29
Caldera'
'$ Springs
1°r24 1
1
lwi
Legend
State Highway
Exhibit "A" Map index
County Boundary
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
1
1
25
1
MEN
City of
La Pine
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Index Map
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
2 8 12
Miles
Odober3,2011
Jefferson County
Legend
State Highway
F-1 Tax Lot Boundary
r 1Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 1 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
October 3.2011
Legend
State Highway
r Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1J Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 2 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 o5 1
October 3.2011
15
Miles
Legend
r State Highway
I i Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
?:. Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 3 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1.5
I � 'Miles
October 3, 2011
anmst.norwasamoinismopenagaraaasFe omen...*
to. wwc.earannaftaNexpozoriorpooi_sensc."-0`,......
Legend
State Highway
j— Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
r Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 4 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1
1.5
Miles
October 3, 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
c't Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 5 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
L5
Otlober3,2011
Miles
Legend
etke State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
® Destination Resort Eligible Area
." Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 6 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
�� MIes
October 3. 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 7 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
'J V
0 005 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
Odober 3.201
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 8 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
MI
001o5er3.2011
wontz.
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 9 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
Ogobera.mll
C6 .
07
.08
08
1111.1aliturtra
� aaY
09
10
11
12
18
17
19
20
16
21
15
T. 15 R. 09
22
14
23
24
30
31
Legend
State Highway
HrTax Lot Boundary
Section Line
' ..., Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
29
28
27
26
25
33
34
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 10 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
October 3. 201
Miles
ems moss swum. wan,. genies, meantime,. e•ero.
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1 1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 11 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
°acher3. 2011
1.5
Miles
ru_re.man.nkn.rnmewm m snmy.rmexmnort.na1...a
441rAliil'S i null
ry llS -
T 16 R 12 II Illi` 11110glill Mann
r� IIt%gn m1
waing
=ill ''-
A�e�1. twm= \Vi = frS
,m _Fp awln•
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 12 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 0.5 s
Miles
October 3. 2011
4.19
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 13 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1
15
October3.2011
times
/t/
!
I
0ami
CY
05
0403
¢
02
01
_
08
09
10
11
12
la
17
_10
P g
15
14 a�
13
9
f
T. 16
21
R. 13
23
24
x
0
.�
Morrill Rd
'�
T9�a r^"•.^--.�"°m
� Morrill Rd
28
of
27--r-1."...----'%'—'1"26
. 1PS
o
31
32
33
34
/
35 36
I
Ir
�
/¢
o*
—
Ils,
I
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 13 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1
15
October3.2011
times
Legend
State Highway
(-- Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 14 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Miles
October 5.2011
*PIN
RuNUml
fl�eNu■
i".
;MELT:
" =..
�
..a
I.'� ai
■
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 15 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
a
0.25 n5
Otlober3,2011
1.5
Mlles
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 16 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VL'
0 0.25 05 15
Miles
amber 3,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit"A' Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 17 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 15
Miles
Otlaber3.2011
C.., Wen MLII•OST 01..11. tut paw.d.as, igsebute•CaNY
IWIAlt
\ r/yn a �: rJ4 a �xs. s� p � � �.
to?
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' ...t Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
.. Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 18 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25
Ogobera.20fl
Mies
IK tet
��
- MEM j4tilfrom
r I11111ZIL
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
® Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
__. Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 19 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
6
0 025 0.5
1.5
Miles
October 3,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I —..e Exhibit ''A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
-, -� Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 20 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1
1.5
oaober 3.2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 21 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
6
0 0.25 0.5
t5
Oditer3.2011
Miles
Legend
State Highway
r Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 22 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Miles
Oclober 3, 2011
I01 Lam'
rat
,f i i_annnwuwnnnn-iUiwno
�4.P _ i. iuwuuiwa: �`�iii
Qi���n4aai awaa- uwu
ionami� at nu malt
!N:.T.IH011ry100 /•.S10 I1W -'•lII
m5rnaamanm_I1Hn1Haa5ry a im
4aThiAu olaacnawanma11H11. 11 In
���raaona wa 00011001 y.
I-tlf IHH I�aIHNE..HHHHHiI liwal�l��� p
y�vJ4
�'-
p i
1000214.11 14441.4 .. q ltIle an Hmiau nrmunuunumetanmum
i{umimndnmwnn nwnnnnmu lnnr
GuoI m. Lw,mn naawnar "kV
or pvn wnn
- uwunnr'rn000
Im5m Hn
'�nuntfn '>;�15hs
dw as nr
mnnld It
awry q nnm � Id�
IaaHiiYl®nn /•4 5
I uti rrtl timnu:j:::$; r
NG��"m.m°jlry s �'��
nnaoo rdu 4q �t
M .l p�
"ai ur
■,1c YI
Legend
State Highway
r Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 23 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
a 0.25 0.5
0005era. 2015
1.5
Miles
CR,011.AlneleeNimolilan.R.I.P.:109 54..c...4
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
"- Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 24 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 0.5 1
1.5
Miles
October3,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 25 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
iiii211/111es
ogober 3.2011
`namunlnntgmW nnfllnn : IIn1nl111I1n1 1111 .
.innnlI% 1 1TI111111111 III I r.I1 111111 1111H11'
�111m 1 : y, •, 11111 11 0 1 1 1 iI UHlit1nn•a 1 nn:
nlII/1 11111 n11pY@t nl i�ut iirgf'�iuin iirnnn`�m111111.
¢!ml 1111111111 r ' nli 1lI IIIl111inlIll�lllIIlIIl�lf1111111e.
dl mum r m T11LAq :. 111111 11/11110
InatiMMJ
1IIIIINII �:
11111111 T.
--
®1 1` I
rnn—
2 C1. ilil iif�i: (AI
—`—' .• Ilj. ��an111
MI
m _- i_ 111ilai:111111
1111111 24 =::
(`111111 nnn vu &nn1 .l.._i n.�1
\lam nix:u .11-y�M
1��r 111 ,11 111111111 111/1/111
-'}rnlIql I j�% 11 IGa�
iC lL IiP11ISMS
It 1
111 R
IIj Inrn111111.
a iluu I11iIu1'uiwn Mil ra11111111 P
�IIIn1�IJnlglppinl.l� 11. 1 1
numanAl
askaul
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A' Map 26 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 05 1.5
Mks
October
October 3,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
r Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit r'A" Map 27 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VLA
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
Otlaber3.2011
1-
18
Wickiup
Reservoir
7
16
19
ET
31
20
29
21
2a
33
L.
T 22 R. 09
Klamath County
03
10
15
22
27
23
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' .4 Exhibit "A” Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
.'= Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 28 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 025 0.5 1 15
Miles
Mober3. 2011
mo
yf►.�AA ) 11111 4ThEr
■r1r
gir-r Winil�IGm■
-Alt: '1 rl 211lxuiml
Axl ■- :=111' le
illxlml i■ vailMx
QlmilI1111! llx 111 Jxum .Mr.1"�
:111111111nl I IPx 1 .,T :wmli , e_ 'iWu
1111111i1i IIxII11 �, WM tr] Si11111111t.`742 LIMISSI �iYYY'
�d�11xn••�' ....
1111 1x11•11nn,�r1 i=m
NMallI i °jy11•111111114.1we
IIIIIi t.■. 1.
- n �x111
guar _::x111. ■
prrr. .iu'
4
•##.nyp
a lip fr09
rSire,
ESUAiteL jjin niT^'
....or---, dlNiim•
*ITOE I f �
mmue� : y in moi` 'pti�t �b
Legend
r State Highway.
t Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
I .a Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit "A" Map 29 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
October3. 2011
FINDINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Planning Commission on January 27, 2011 recommended the following
amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Titles 23 and 18, Deschutes County Destination
Resort Maps:1
• Remove 91,701 acres disqualified as a result of the new criteria encompassed in Ordinance
2010-024;
• Maintain 17,560 acres carried over from the existing resort map that continues to meet the
criteria cited in Ordinance 2010-024;
• Maintain 3,187 acres carried over from the existing resort map based on 908 grandfather
requests;
• Add 3 sites, totaling 1,255.17 acres based on three map amendment applications; and,
• For one of the 3 sites, the Planning Commission recommended that 360 of the 400 acres
proposed, be added to the map. The 40 acres that were not added represent a non-
contiguous tax lot. The Planning Commission made a separate motion addressing this
particular issue:
"Indicate to the Board that the 40 acres defined as Tax Lot 15-12-0000-05101 were
never anticipated and that it be thoughtfully considered."
The amended destination resort map recommended by the Planning Commission now identifies
22,002.17 acres, reflecting an 80% reduction from the map in place (112,448 acres) prior to the
present amendment.
PURPOSE
Initiated by Deschutes County, the following plan amendment and zone changes are
encompassed in Ordinances 2011-001 and 2011-002 respectively, and collectively amend DCC
Titles 23 and 18, and their respective Destination Resort maps:
• Plan Amendment 10-6 (PA 10-6) and Zone Change 10-4 (ZC 10-4);
• Plan Amendment 10-7 (PA 10-7) and Zone Change 10-5 (ZC 10-5);
• Plan Amendment 10-8 (PA 10-8) and Zone Change 10-6 (ZC 10-6); and,
• Plan Amendment 10-9 (PA 10-9) and Zone Change 10-7 (ZC 10-7).
The two maps show where destination resorts can be located in Deschutes County. The map
depicted in Ordinance 2011-001 is officially an element of the Comprehensive Plan, while the
one in Ordinance 2011-002 is part of the zoning ordinance, depicting Deschutes County's
Destination Resort Overlay Zone. The two maps are identical, and represent amendments
adopted pursuant to ORS 197.455(2).
A tax bill insert, complying with Ballot Measure 56 announcing the November 18, 2010 Planning Commission
hearing was distributed in mid-October to all disqualified property owners in Deschutes County and was otherwise
noticed as required.
Page 1 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
BACKGROUND
Existing Destination Resort Map
A destination resort chapter was added to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan in 1992
at the request of Eagle Crest Resort.2 Under state law, destination resorts are only allowed in
areas designated on a county destination resort map. ORS 197.455(2). In 1992, the County
supplemented the state's criteria by excluding large agricultural and forest parcels, and resource
lands within one mile of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).3 During periodic review, 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 Oregon Revised Statutes (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 Zone Map. The existing map designates
112,448 acres.
New Ordinances
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) on July 28, 2010 adopted by emergency
Ordinances 2010-024 and 2010-025. These two ordinances, recently affirmed by the Land Use
Board of Appeals and the Oregon Court of Appeals, establish criteria and a legislative process
Deschutes County can follow to change its destination resort maps.4 Ordinance 2010-024 as
summarized in Table 1, modifies DCC Chapter 23.84, Destination Resort Goals and Policies by
listing areas that are eligible and ineligible for destination resorts.5
Table 1 - Ordinance 2010-024 / Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria
Ineligibile Areas
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 Cro. Area
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
Tumalo deer winter range
Portion of the Metolius deer winter range
Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican
w
tes €s ilac 150 res reter War�
2 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%2023.84.doc. All documents referenced by hyperlinks
in these findings are incorporated into the record by this reference.
3 Destination Resort Legislative History: Ordinance Nos. 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, 92-029, 92-030, 92-031, 92-032,
93-029,93-030,93-031,2001-019,2010-024, and 2010-025.
° The Land Use Board of Appeals, LUBA No. 2010-075 and 2010-076 affirmed the County's decision.
5 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%2023.84.doc
Page 2 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 1 - Ordinance 2010-024 / Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria
Ineligibile Areas
(continued)
Areas of Critical State Concern
Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican
Elk Habitat Area
Deer Winter Ran. e
Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C)
iCfit
Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous acres in
irrigation
00
8 a a
Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries
Platted subdivisions
Eligibile Areas
Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land
Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres
Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships
Ordinance 2010-025 as shown in Table 2, specifies Destination Resort Map Amendment
Procedures cited in DCC 22.23 by describing the process for handling map amendment
applications.6
Table 2 - Ordinance 2010-025 / Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures
teats
The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be the first Tuesday in September by
5:00 p.m.
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
e70itl
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
6 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title22/docs/chapter%2022.23.doc
Page 3 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 2 - Ordinance 2010-025 / Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures
Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the property owner as defined
herein to make the application
Be completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director
Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of County Commissioners
Include documentation that demonstrates compliance with eligibility criteria
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
PROPOSALS
Deletions
Deschutes County, through Plan Amendment 10-6 and Zone Change 10-4 is proposing to
amend the existing resort map by removing 91,701 acres from the resort map because new
eligibility criteria cited in Ordinance 2010-024 disqualify these areas from becoming eligible to
site a destination resort and because the underlying property owners did not file a request to
retain the overlay under DCC 22.23.010(C). These properties were originally designated in
1992. The new eligibility criteria exclude the following properties:
• A site size of less than 160 acres;
• Located in a subdivision;
• Agricultural or forest land, located within a mile of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);
• Located in a UGB or Redmond Urban Reserve Area; and/or,
• Located in certain officially designated wildlife areas.
The City of Bend also requested, voluntarily that the County remove 3 parcels associated with
their wastewater treatment plant and 5 affiliated with Juniper Ridge, a master -planned, mixed-
use area in NE Bend. This affected area is accounted within the 91,701 acres proposed for
removal.
Grandfather Clause
New destination resort eligibility criteria adopted by the Board last summer, disqualified
approximately 30,000 tax lots that were designated originally in 1992.' However, a second
ordinance adopted by the Board provided a process for those disqualified landowners to retain
their previous mapping designation. Property owners wishing to remain on Deschutes County's
Destination Resort Maps, even though state and/or local land use laws would likely prohibit
approval of a destination resort on these properties, were allowed to file a formal request with
the Community Development Department under DCC 22.23.010(C). The deadline for requesting
a property to remain eligible on the County's Destination Resort Map per Ordinance 2010-025
7 Ordinance 2010-024, DCC 23.84.030 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%2023.84.doc
Page 4 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
was January 7, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.8 Deschutes County received 908 requests, amounting to
3,187 acres. These properties remain on the resort map; however, whether a resort could be
sited on such lands would be based on current County development standards and any relevant
provisions of state law. Attachment 1, which is a series of parcel based maps, shows these
"grandfathered" properties. Nine hundred and eight "grandfather" properties were crossed
checked by Geographic Information Systems and shown to contain an original destination resort
designation.
Additions
Deschutes County received three requests to add properties to Deschutes County's Destination
Resort Maps. Each application is summarized below in Table 3.
Table 3 - Requests to Add Properties to Destination Resort Map
Applicant
Case File
Location
Acres
Tax Lot(s)
Belveron Partners,
LLC and Vandevert
Road, LLC 9
Plan Amendment 10-8
Zone Change 10-6
South of Sunriver, near
Vandevert Road
179.5
98.68
201100-00-00104
201100-00-00105
Updated Destination Resort Map Statistics
Deschutes County is proposing to amend the resort maps as follows:
• Remove 91,701 acres removed as a result of the new criteria encompassed in Ordinance
2010-024.
• Maintain 17,560 acres designated on the existing resort map that continue to meet the
criteria cited in Ordinance 2010-024.
• Maintain 3,187 acres carried over from the existing resort map based on 908 grandfather
requests pursuant to DCC 22.23.010(C);
• Add 3 sites, totaling 1,255.17 acres based on map amendment applications:I0
The amended destination resort map now identifies 22,002.17 acres, reflecting an 80%
reduction from the one presently in place (112,448 acres).
Ordinance 2010-025, DCC 23.23.010(C)- http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title22/docs/chapter%2022.23.doc
Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC own tax lot 104; Vandevert Road, LLC owns tax lot 105.
10 With the exception of one ineligible tax lot (151200-00-05101) owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands,
the three map amendment applications comply with Deschutes County's eligibility criteria cited in Ord. 2010-024.
Page 5 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
REVIEW CRITERIA
Two ordinances, Ordinance No. 2010-024 and 2010-025 were adopted by the County last year.
Ordinance 2010-024 establishes new destination resort mapping criteria, and Ordinance 2010-
025, the map amendment procedures. Both ordinances provide the basis for reviewing the
legislative plan and zone change map amendments and justifying that they are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Findings are also made demonstrating consistency with statewide
planning goals and relevant statutory law.
FINDINGS
1. 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 7th 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 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."
2. Oregon Revised Statutes / Destination Resort Map Amendments
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 UGB of a city. New
language was added to ORS 197.455(2) in that same session allowing counties to adopt
amendments to their destination resort maps, not more frequently than once every thirty (30)
months.12 This statutory provision also requires that a county develop a process for collecting
and processing concurrently all map amendments made within a 30 -month planning period. As
shown below, Ordinance 2010-025 incorporates that requirement in DCC 22.23.010(A).73
3. Deschutes County Map Amendment Procedures
The Board on July 28, 2010 adopted Ordinance 2010-025, DCC 22.23, Destination Resort Map
Amendment Procedures. This ordinance describes the process for handling map amendment
applications. DCC 22.23.010(A) requires the County to process simultaneously all amendments
to the eligibility map, no more than once every thirty months. This criterion, consistent with ORS
197.455(2),. provides the basis for initiating a legislative land use process. It is also consistent
with DCC 22.12.030, Legislative Procedures, which recognizes a legislative change may be
11 Agenda Item 4, October 15, 2008 LCDC Meeting - Informational Briefing and Public Hearing Regarding Destination
Resorts.
12 http://www.leq.state.or.us/ors/197.html.
3 DCC 22.23.010. "All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than once
every 30 months."
Page 6 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board or
the Planning Commission."
The four map amendment requests that remove and add lands to the destination resort maps
cited in DCC Titles 23 and 18 are evaluated below and shown to satisfy Deschutes County's
map amendment procedures.
4. Deschutes County Destination Resort Goals and Policies
The Board, on July 28, 2010, adopted Ordinance 2010-024, amending the Comprehensive
Plan, DCC Chapter 23.84, to include new goals and policies that describe areas that are eligible
for siting a destination resort. The criteria provide clear and objective mapping criteria. The four
map amendment requests that remove and add lands to the destination resort maps cited in
DCC Titles 23 and 18, are evaluated below. With the exception of one ineligible tax lot (151200-
00-05101) owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands, they all comply with Deschutes
County's eligibility criteria.
5. Deschutes County Map Amendment
Deschutes County is proposing to remove 91,701 acres from its resort map because the new
eligibility criteria cited in Ordinance 2010-024 would not permit resort development on these
sites. These properties were originally designated on the resort map in 1992. The County's new
eligibility criteria now prohibit resort development on these sites because these sites are:
• A site size of less than 160 acres;
• Located in a subdivision;
• Agricultural or forest land, located within a mile of a UGB;
• Located in a UGB or Redmond Urban Reserve Area; and/or,
• Located in certain officially designated wildlife areas.
The City of Bend also requested, voluntarily that the County remove 3 parcels associated with
its wastewater treatment plant and 5 affiliated with Juniper Ridge. This affected area is
accounted within the 91,701 acres proposed for removal.
6. Grandfather Request
Under state law, destination resorts can only be sited in areas designated on a county
destination resort map. In 1992, Deschutes County developed a destination resort map by
supplementing the state's eligibility criteria by excluding large agricultural and forest parcels,
and resource lands within one mile of a UGB. The mapping was done in a phased sequence,
based on pending farm and forest studies. If a property was not excluded from the map by state
or county criteria, it was automatically designated on Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan
and Destination Resort Overlay Zone Maps beginning in 1992. Those two maps designate
112,448 acres as eligible for resort development.
New destination resort eligibility criteria adopted by the Board in 2010 would have disqualified
approximately 30,000 tax lots that were designated originally in 1992 if applied to all lands on
the existing, pre -amendment Destination Resort Map.15 A second ordinance adopted by the
Board provided a process for those disqualified landowners to retain their mapping designation
pursuant to a grandfather clause. Property owners wishing to remain on Deschutes County's
Destination Resort Maps were allowed to file a formal grandfather request with the Community
Development Department. The deadline for requesting a property to remain eligible on the
14 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title22/docs/chapter%2022.12.doc
15 Ordinance 2010-024, DCC 23.84.030- http)/www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%2023.84.doc
Page 7 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
County's Destination Resort Map per Ordinance 2010-025 was January 7, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
Deschutes County received 908 requests, amounting to 3,187 acres. Attachment 1, which is a
series of parcel based maps, shows these "grandfathered" properties. Nine hundred and eight
"grandfather" properties were crossed checked by Geographic Information Systems and shown
to contain an original destination resort designation.
Because Deschutes County is amending the Destination Resort Map, rather than adopting an
entirely new map, the County was not required to evaluate each parcel retained on the map to
determine whether each such grandfathered parcel met current standards. When the County
adopted Ordinances 2010-024 and 2010-025, the County did not intend to have these
ordinances apply retroactively. Consequently, with respect to property owners who have sought
to have their properties retained on the resort map pursuant to DCC 22.23.010(C), the County is
not required to consider whether these properties comply with the current County mapping
standards adopted under Ordinance 2010-024 or current statutory standards set forth in
ORS 197.455. See, Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2010-075 and
2010-076, March 10, 2011 (Slip Op. 24).
7. Transportation Planning Rule for Lands Removed from Resort Map
and Overlay Zoning
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires local governments to determine whether an
amendment to a comprehensive plan will "significantly affect" an existing or planned
transportation facility. The TPR identifies three ways in which an amendment to a
comprehensive plan could "significantly affect" a transportation facility. OAR 660-012-0060(1).
The present amendment removes 91,701 acres of land from the Destination Resort Overlay
Zone map. This means that 91,701 acres of land are no longer eligible for resort development.
The removal of over 91,000 acres of land eligible for resort development will not add any trips to
any transportation facility. In fact, by removing over 91,000 acres of eligible land, the present
amendment will greatly reduce the amount of traffic which could be presently generated by
removing the ability to develop resorts on this land. Because the only effect to transportation
facilities could be a reduction of potential future trips, the County's decision to remove 91,701
acres from the Destination Resort Overlay Map does not "significantly affect" any transportation
facility under OAR 660-012-0060(1). TPR compliance findings regarding the properties added
to the Destination Resort Overlay Zone map are set forth below.
8. Senate Bill 1031 — Wildfire Protection Plan
The Oregon Legislature in 2010 enacted SB 1031 and added the following provision to ORS
197.455:
197.455. (1) A destination resort may be sited only on lands mapped as eligible for
destination resort siting by the affected county. The county may not allow destination
resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following
areas:
(f) On a site in which the lands are predominantly classified as being in Fire Regime
Condition Class 3, unless the county approves a wildfire protection plan that
demonstrates the site can be developed without being at a high overall risk of fire.
a. Vandevert/Belveron and Pine Forest
Each of these properties is predominantly classified as being Fire Regime Condition Class 3
pursuant to the Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition Revised Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (the "Wildfire Plan"). In particular, each of these properties is within the Three
Page 8 of 40 - Exhibit 13 to Ordinance 2011-001
Rivers area of the Wildfire Plan. Deschutes County has seven community wildfire protection
plans (CWPPs) that address the entire county. The Wildfire Plan is the plan applicable to the
Vandevert/Belveron and Pine Forest properties. Thus, each of these properties are currently
subject to a County -approved wildfire protection plan. In addition, the County will require, as a
condition to this ordinance, that each of the properties added to the Destination Resort Overlay
Zone map not only comply with the Wildfire Plan, but that each be developed consistent with
"FireWise" standards, and each become a recognized FireWise Community.
Caldera Springs, a destination resort adjacent to the Pine Forest property and in near proximity
to the Belveron and Vandevert Road properties, is a recognized FireWise Community.
Similarly, Crosswater, a non -Goal 8 resort in close proximity to the Pine Forest, Belveron and
Vandevert Road properties, is also a recognized FireWise Community. Both the Caldera and
Crosswater properties are within the Three Rivers area of the Wildfire Plan. These
properties have been developed with resorts (or resort -type developments) and have been
developed without being at a high overall risk of fire. Based on the experience with these
nearby properties, the County finds that by imposing a requirement to develop any new resort
as a FireWise community, and otherwise comply with applicable Wildfire Plan, the three
properties may be developed without being at a high overall risk of fire. To the extent that new
information becomes available or evidence is presented that the FireWise standards and
the Wildfire Plan are insufficient to address wildfire risk, the County may impose additional
standards at the time of resort approval as required by the condition of approval adopted by the
County. To the extent that ORS 197.455(1)(f) requires the County to adopt individual wildfire
protection plans for each property at the time of mapping, the County hereby adopts the Wildfire
Plan as the wildfire protection plan required under ORS 197.455(1)(f) for the Belveron,
Vandevert and Pine Forest properties. For purposes of the present amendments, the County
finds that the existing approved Wildfire Plan, and the requirement to develop any resort as a
FireWise community, constitute the wildfire protection plans described in ORS 197.455(1)(f) and
that these demonstrate that each of the three properties to be developed without being at a high
overall risk of fire.
b. DSL Cline Buttes Site
The DSL Cline Buttes site is located within the southwest quadrant of the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The adjacent Eagle Crest Destination Resort is
also within the same CWPP quadrant area. This CWPP was originally completed and approved
in December 2006.
As a condition of approval to this ordinance the County will require that any resort proposed on
the DSL Cline Buttes site shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan, as such plan may be amended, and shall be required to be
developed consistent with FireWise standards and to become a recognized FireWise
Community. Given that the adjacent Eagle Crest Resort is in close proximity to the DSL Cline
Buttes site and shares many of the same attributes related to terrain and vegetation, and
because Eagle Crest Resort has been developed without being at a high overall risk of fire and
is subject to the Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan, the County finds that by
imposing the condition of approval, the DSL Cline Buttes site can be developed without being at
a high overall risk of fire.
The condition of approval applicable to all of the land being added to the resort map pursuant to
these amendments is as follows:
"The County has adopted, as the relevant wildfire protection plans described in
ORS 197.455(1)(t), the Upper Deschutes River Natural Resources Coalition
Page 9 of 40 - Exhibit 6 to Ordinance 2011-001
Revised Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Any resort developed on the three
properties added to the resort map shall be required to comply with the terms
and conditions of the applicable wildfire protection plan, as such plan may be
amended from time to time. In addition, any resort developed on any of the three
properties added to the resort map shall be required to be developed consistent
with FireWise standards and shall, as a condition of approval to any resort
development, be required to become recognized as a FireWise community. If
the County determines that, at the time of resort development, that the adopted
wildfire plans and FireWise community standards are insufficient to assure that a
site can be developed without being at a high overall risk of fire, then the County
shall require, as a condition of approval, the adoption of an altemate wildfire
protection plan that demonstrates the site can be developed without being at a
high overall risk of fire."
The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.
Page 10 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
9. Pine Forest Development LLC Map Amendment
Table 4 - Destination Resort Map Eligibility
Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing
population of 100,000
Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have a UGB
with a population of 100,000. The City of Bend's 2010
population, according to US Census is 76,639. All of the
Bend urban area is located inside the City limits. No other
city within 24 air miles of Deschutes County has a population
over 100,000.
On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2
forest lands which are not subject to an Q
approved Goal exception
Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have
predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands
(Ordinance 92-002). The Map of State of Oregon Showing
Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process dated
December 1984, also, shows that the subject property does
not contain cubic foot site class 1 & 2 forest land. This is the
map that the State of Oregon prepared to show forest lands
and Goal 5 resource lands that must be excluded from
destination resort mapping
,.r rsm> ie;
Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as
listed below, as generally mapped by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) in July 1984 and as further refined
through development of comprehensive plan
provisions implementing this requirement
eQ
Applicant complies. This site is not mapped by ODFW as
being within any of the especially sensitive big game habitat
identified in Ordinance 92-002, the ordinance that adopted
the County's inventory of such areas. See also, Ordinance
Q 92-041. The Pine Forest property is not located in any of the
areas shown on the Map of State of Oregon Showing Areas
Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process dated
December 1984 that shows all especially sensitive big game
habitat mapped by ODFW in July 1984.
co : ;es
Areas of Critical State Concern
Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999
ODFW map submitted to the South County
Regional Problem Solving Group
••Gant 7n I �k ssitee�+ ompasses6�ft.
Applicant complies. This site is not within the Metolius sub
basin the only area of critical state concern in Deschutes
County
Apptiea;it complies The site rs nat mapped by ODFW as
especja1ty sensitive bgrgame habitat Tomato Deer Winter`:
Range etolius cDe-,-4646101430 Antelope' Winter
Range, WiIdItfe. Priority Area or Elk Habitat Area arras the;
Countj has chosen to protect (OFdmanges 92 002 and 92`'
Q Applicant complies. This site is not mapped as a Wildlife
Priority Area identified on the 1999 ODFW map.
Page 11 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 4 - Destination Resort Map Eligibility
Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation
(OS&C)
Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1); 171
Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
having 40 or greater contiguous acres in 0
irrigation
Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same
ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres
121
0
Applicant complies. The site is zoned Forest Use 2. The
following combining zones also apply: Wildlife Area
Combining Zone (Deer Migration Corridor), Airport Safety
Combining Zone, Landscape Area Combining Zone/
Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under
ORS 195.145
Applicant complies. The site is not within Redmond's Urban
0 Reserve Area, the only land in Deschutes County that is
desk nated urban reserve under ORS 195.145.
11
Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture
(MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR -10) zones
0
Applicant complies. The site is zoned Forest Use 2. The
following combining zones also apply: Wildlife Area
Combining Zone (Deer Migration Corridor), Airport Safety
Combining Zone, Landscape Area Combining Zone.
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
Not applicable. The site is not within a cluster development.
Page 12 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 5 - Map Amendment Procedures
The deadline for applications for the first
eligibility map amendment shall be the first Q
Tuesday in September by 5:00 p.m.
Applicant complies. Pine Forest Development, LLC
submitted their application on September 3.
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 Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent
eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish El Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map
a notice announcing opportunities for property since periodic review.
owners to apply for an amendment to the
eligibility map.
,c.
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.
�d eit
Applicant complies. Pine Forest Development, LLC
Q submitted their application on September 3. Furthermore,
no applications were received after September 7, 2010.
16 Deschutes County started its periodic review in 1988 and completed it on January 23, 2003.
Page 13 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 5 - Map Amendment Procedures
11111111U:1U111
0
_
1:1
The planning director shall retain any
applications received prior to the expiration of [21
the 30 -month period
Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent
Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map
since periodic review. Furthermore, no applications were
received after September 7, 2010.
The planning director shall schedule the hearing
before the planning commission or hearings
officer after the expiration of the 30 -month
period
Q
Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent
Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map
since periodic review. The first evidentiary hearing for this
legislative process was November 18, 2010 before the
Planning Commission.
Page 14 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
10. Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC & Vandevert Road, LLC Map
Amendment
Table 6 - Destination Resort Map Eligibility
Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing
population of 100,000
Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have a UGB
with a population of 100,000. The City of Bend's 2010
population, according to US Census is 76,639. All of the
Bend urban area is located inside the City limits. No other
city within 24 air miles of Deschutes County has a population
over 100,000.
0
On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2
forest lands which are not subject to an
approved Goal exception
Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have
predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands
(Ordinance 92-002). The Map of State of Oregon Showing
Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process dated
Q December 1984, also, shows that the subject property does
not contain cubic foot site class 1 & 2 forest land. This is the
map that the State of Oregon prepared to show forest lands
and Goal 5 resource lands that must be excluded from
destination resort mapeing
ca I R=niTatgTakj6ts104 ata
.._.-----_-(erot
Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as
listed below, as generally mapped by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) in July 1984 and as further refined
through development of comprehensive plan
provisions implementing this requirement
Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not mapped by
ODFW as being within any of the especially sensitive big
game habitat identified in Ordinance 92-002, the ordinance
that adopted the County's inventory of such areas. See also,
Ordinance 92-041. The Pine Forest property is not located in
any of the areas shown on the Map of State of Oregon
Showing Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resod Siting
Process dated December 1984 that shows all especially
sensitive big game habitat mapped by ODFW in July 1984.
Apticant complies Tax lota.[104 and ;105 enpompass one?
of. -27$17 edr hgubus acres Ta* -101 104, atone meets;;
SQ acre-miniftum #OU size 55tt.rs 179 5 acres::' Tax toi':
�s 98 68 acres;
Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within the
Metolius sub -basin, the only area of critical state concern in
Deschutes County.
Applicant complies Tax lots 104 and 105. are not.mapped bj
W as especially sensitive 4big:gatne habitat , Tumalos
eer Winter Range Mefotius' Deer Minter Range =Antetope"
tinter' -Range,-. Wildlife .Priority Area or Elk Habitat Area;.•
ars-:fhe County; has chosen to protect (Ordinances 92-002 :
Areas of Critical State Concern
rtes:^listed 0- tthal-are: tnventoned;Goar-
somata, showh roti the W ldhfe Combining=
one that the Gounty has chosen taprotect
Page 15 of 40 - Exhibit 13 to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 6 - Destination Resort Map Eligibility
Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not mapped as
Regional Probleemm Solving G
ODFW map vin to Group the South County Q a Wildlife Priority Area identified on the 1999 ODFW map.
Farm or forest land within one mile outside of Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within a
urban growth boundaries mile of a UGB.
r"-Ysi '°«l:i .
a
Platted subdivisions
5.. A' -t
Q Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within a
platted subdivision.
Eligible Areas
Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture
(MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR -10) zones
Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are zoned Forest
Use 2. The following combining zones also apply: Wildlife
Area Combining Zone (Deer Migration Corridor), Landscape
Area Combining Zone.
olatiffqa
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
Not applicable. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within a cluster
development.
Page 16 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 7 - Map Amendment Procedures
Procedures
Findings
The deadline for applications for the first Applicant complies. Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC and
eligibility map amendment shall be the first RI Vandevert Road, LLC submitted their joint application on
Tuesday in September by 5:00 p.m. September 3.
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 Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent
eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish ❑✓ Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map
a notice announcing opportunities for property since periodic review.
owners to apply for an amendment to the
eligibility map.
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.
Applicant complies. Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC
and Vandevert Road, LLC submitted their joint application
on September 3. Furthermore, no applications were
received after September 7, 2010.
corripjeted o,
lamm� Direetor-
9
eepcdptpanied bythe appjopnaf
- .suchssfeSsare- dived.by.""
�4ommissioners �
jr cluda documentattprr .that de.
compliance with DCC 2324 030(3;
Applications adding properties to the eligibility
map, the applicant will be required to
demonstrate consistency with the Q
Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660-
012-0060
Applicant complies. Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC
and Vandevert Road, LLC submitted a transportation
analysis to demonstrate consistency with the Transportation
Planning Rule. Specific findings are cited below.
17 Ibid.
Page 17 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 7 - Map Amendment Procedures
Procedures
Findings
Multiple applications shall be consolidated
0 Applicant complies. All amendments as noted in these
findings are being consolidated and processed concurrently.
11. Supplemental Findings Applicable to Pine Forest Development LLC Map
Amendment, and Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC & Vandevert Road, LLC Map
Amendment
The following findings supplement the findings and conclusions contained in the Pine Forest
and BelveronNandevert tables, above, by discussing certain criteria in greater detail. All exhibit
references are to the exhibits of the Relevant Facts document prepared and filed by Belveron
Real Estate Partners, LLC, except where noted otherwise:
a. Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more
The following relevant facts support Deschutes County's determination that land being added to
the destination resort map is over 24 air miles from a UGB with an existing population of
100,000 or more:18
1. The City of Bend is located within 24 air miles of all properties proposed for inclusion
on the Deschutes County destination resort map and for DR overlay zoning.
2. According to the 2010 US Census, the City of Bend had a population of 76,639
persons. This is shown by Exhibit A, a complete list of the populations of Oregon
cities and counties on April 1, 2010 compiled by the State of Oregon Office of
Economic Analysis from US Bureau of Census records.
3. The City of Bend urban growth boundary is the same as its City limits. This is shown
by a comparison of the City's Bend Area General Plan map dated March 1, 2011,
Exhibit B, and the Bend Urban Area Proposed General Plan Map dated 12/12/2008
prepared by the City of Bend, Exhibit C. Exhibit B shows the City limits with a blue
line. Exhibit C shows the location of the existing UGB with a light gray border. A
comparison of the two maps shows that the boundaries are the same.
a. No urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more is
located within 24 air miles of any of the properties that may be added to the
destination resort map. This fact can be confirmed by a review of Exhibit A and
a State of Oregon map that is marked Exhibit D. Exhibit D is an Oregon
18 Exhibits A - T referenced in this Section 11 were submitted into the record by Liz Fancher on June 27, 2011.
Page 18 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Department of Transportation map that is drawn to scale that shows county
boundaries and the locations of a number of cities.
The Board finds that the BelveronNandevert and Pine Forest properties are not within 24 air
miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more.
b. Not a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land
identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service
No site being added to the destination resort map is a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of
unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service. SCS is a
federal agency currently known as the National Resources Conservation Service. NRCS and
the US Department of Agriculture prepared a Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area,
Oregon based on 1992 conditions. The survey includes maps of agricultural soils. This is the
soil survey that applies to land in Deschutes County that is used in land use planning to
determine soil types. Deschutes County's GIS Department has created an application that
superimposes the NRCS soil maps on County maps.
There are no unique soils in Deschutes County according to Chad L. McGrath, the Pacific NW
Soil Survey Region Leader/State Soil Scientist of the NRCS. Exhibit E.
A County map with the NRCS soils data is Exhibit I. The relevant part of the NRCS soil survey
map is also included as Exhibits F and G of this document. The maps show that most of the
BelveronNandevert Road property is mapped by the NRCS survey.
The mapped soils on the BelveronNandevert Road property are Soil Class 114C and 115A.
Neither soil class is unique or prime farm land. The NRCS's complete list of prime and other
important farmlands found in the Upper Deschutes River Area soil survey is Exhibit J. The list
does not include soil classes 114C or 115A soils. Those soils, therefore, are not prime farm
soils. In addition, the list shows that land must be irrigated to qualify as prime farm land. The
BelveronNandevert Road property is non -irrigated land that is rated Class VI. The soils found
on the property have no rating for irrigated use. The NRCS lists the major use of lands with
these soils as woodland. No agricultural uses are listed.
Exhibit G and Exhibit J show that the only NRCS-mapped soils on the Pine Forest Property
are Soil Classes 114 C and 115A. These soils are not prime or unique, as explained above.
The Belveron property and the Pine Forest property include some lands that are not mapped by
NRCS or by SCS. Land must be mapped for it to qualify as a site of 50 or more contiguous
acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (now
NRCS).
The Board finds that the BelveronNandevert and Pine Forest properties are not on a site of 50
or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil
Conservation Service.
c. Not within three miles of farm land within a High -Value Crop Area
Commercial Farms
When Deschutes County mapped destination resorts in 1992, it determined that there are no
high value crop areas in Deschutes County. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 92-002, pages 7-
9. The same conclusion applies today and demonstrates that the Belveron, Vandevert and Pine
Page 19 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Forest properties are not within three miles of a High -Value Crop Area. The High Value Crop
Area requirement is imposed by State law, ORS 197.455(1) (B). The term "High Value Crop
Area" is defined by ORS 197.435(2) as:
High value crop area" means an area in which there is a concentration of
commercial farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross
value of $1, 000 per acre per year. These crops and products include field crops,
small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts or vegetables, dairying, livestock feedlots or
Christmas trees as these terms are used in the 1983 County and State
Agricultural Estimates prepared by the Oregon State University Extension
Service. The high value crop area" designation is used for the purpose of
minimizing conflicting uses in resort siting and does not revise the requirements
of an agricultural land goal or administrative rules interpreting the goal.
To be a high value crop area, there must be a "concentration" of commercial farms capable of
producing a minimum gross value of $1000 per acre per year. The State -acknowledged
definition of the term "commercial farm" found in DCC 18.040.030 is:
"Commercial farm" as used in DCC 18.16 means those land tracts shown on the 1991
Assessor's records as contiguous ownership tracts under one name (or separated only
by a road), zoned EFU, receiving special assessment for farm use and in the top 90
percent of assessed farm use values (arranged in ascending order). These farms are
identified in the resource element of the comprehensive plan.
All commercial farms in Deschutes County are listed in an inventory that is a part of the
Resource Element of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The relevant part of the
inventory is the part that lists commercial farms found in the La Pine subzone. All other
commercial agricultural areas (subzones) are more than three miles away from the Belveron,
Vandevert and Pine Forest properties. The inventory for the La Pine subzone is called "Table
12 — La Pine Subzone," and is included as Exhibit K.
A review of Exhibit K, County land use records and County zoning maps shows that the only
commercial farms that are or may be within three miles of the Belveron, Vandevert and Pine
Forest properties are:
(1) A part of Tax Lot 400, Assessor's Map 21-10-00 now identified as Tax Lot 401; and
(2) Tax Lot 10501, Assessor's Map 21-10-01-A.
These properties are adjacent to one another. A part of each tax lot is zoned Flood Plain rather
than EFU-LA, Exclusive Farm Use — LaPine subzone. The soil types found on these properties
are Soil Classes 39A, 144A and 115A. The 39A soils are found along the Deschutes River in
the flood plain zone. The 144A soil is the primary soil found on the EFU-zoned part of Tax Lot
10501. A small area in the northwest corner of Tax Lot 10501 is 115A soil. The EFU-LA zoned
part of Tax Lot 401 has approximately the same amount of 115A and 144A soil.
The USDA/NRCS's Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon shows that the major
use of soil types 115A and 144A is woodland. No agricultural use is listed. Both soils are rated
soil class VI with no rating given for the soils when irrigated.
Tax Lots 400 and 10501 are separated from all other EFU land in the area by LaPine State
Recreation Road and by lands that are not agricultural land, as the term is defined by Statewide
Planning Goal 3.
Page 20 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Tax Lot 401 is split -zoned FP and EFU-LA. It was held in private ownership when it was a part
of Tax Lot 400 and included on the County's commercial farm inventory. Since then, the part of
former Tax Lot 400 that lacked irrigation water rights was acquired by the USA and is being
managed by the BLM as a part of adjacent federal land. It no longer receives special
assessment for farm use because the property is owned by the USA and exempt from ad
valorem taxation. As the property is not receiving special assessment, it does not qualify as a
commercial farm. Additionally, BLM's property manager has advised that Tax Lot 401 is not
employed in farm use.
A review of State of Oregon water rights records shows that Tax Lot 401 lacks irrigation water
rights. Without water rights, the property is not suited to produce high value crops with a
minimum gross value of $1,000 per year or to be used for the operation of a commercial -scale
livestock yard.
County records show that Tax Lot 10501 is assessed as being a small tract forest property. It is
receiving tax deferral because it is being used for a forest use rather than farm use. Forest use
is appropriate for the soil types found on the EFU-zoned part of this lot. In addition, State of
Oregon water rights records indicate that Tax Lot 10501 does not contain water rights. Without
water rights, the property is not suited to produce high value crops or products with a minimum
gross value of $1,000 per year as it lacks irrigation water rights.
Even if both Tax Lots 401 and 10501 are still considered to be commercial farm properties, they
are not a part of a concentration of commercial farms that are producing crops that gross $1000
per acre or more. Neither property produces farm crops. Neither is used as a livestock feedlot.
As determined by the County's comprehensive plan, irrigation is essential for crops. These tax
lots do not constitute a concentration of commercial farms as no lands between these properties
and the proposed resort map properties are farms. Instead, the intervening land is zoned RR -
10 (a rural residential exceptions area), F2 (forest land) and FP, (flood plain) as shown by the
County's zoning maps.
Deschutes County Tax Assessor Maps that illustrate the conclusion that commercial farm lands
within three miles of Tax Lots 104 and 105 are not concentrated are included as Exhibits H, I, J
and K. These maps show the locations of Tax Lots 104 and 105 and all land identified by
Deschutes County as commercial farm land. Because there is potentially only one or two
commercial farms within three miles of the Belveron, Vandevert and Pine Forest properties, the
County concludes that these farms do not constitute a "concentration" of commercial farms, and
therefore could not be contained within a "high value crop area". Because the County has
previously determined that the County contains no high value crop areas, because no party has
submitted any evidence to the contrary, and there is presently no concentration of commercial
farms within three miles of these properties, the County concludes that the Belveron, Vandevert
and Pine Forest properties are not sites within three miles of a high value crop area.
Furthermore, none of the other lands within a three mile radius of the Belveron, Vandevert and
Pine Forest properties contain a concentration of any type of farm that can yield over $1000 of
gross income per acre per year from farm uses. Only three EFU-zoned properties found within
three miles of the Belveron, Vandevert and Pine Forest properties are zoned EFU and not
included on the county's list of commercial farms. None of these lots receive special
assessment for farm use and none are employed in farm use. As a result, none are part of a
high value crop area.
d. On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject
to an approved Goal exception
Page 21 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
The location of Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands and especially sensitive big game
habitat was determined by the State of Oregon in 1984. These areas are shown on a map
entitled "Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process" dated December 1984. This is
the map referenced in the State's destination resort law. A copy of the relevant part of this map
that shows that the Belveron, Vandevert and Pine Forest properties do not include land which is
predominately cubic foot site Class 1 or 2 forest land is included as Exhibit O.
The Board finds that the BelveronNandevert and Pine Forest properties are not located on
predominately Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an approved
exception.
e. Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped
by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFIA) in July 1984 and as further
refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this
requirement
The Exhibit 0 map shows the areas in the State of Oregon that were mapped by ODFW in July
1984 as especially sensitive big game habitat. The map shows that the Belveron, Vandevert
and Pine Forest properties were not mapped as containing especially sensitive big game
habitat. The Belveron, Vandevert. and Pine Forest properties are mapped WA to protect the
Bend LaPine Deer Migration Corridor. They are not located in the Tumalo deer winter range,
Metolius deer winter range or the antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and
Millican. Those zones contain all ODFW 1984 mapped especially sensitive big game habitat
found in Deschutes County. The Board finds that the BelveronNandevert and Pine Forest
properties are not located on lands designated especially sensitive big game habitat by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 and as further refined through
development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement.
f. 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
The BelveronNandevert Road and Pine Forest properties are mapped WA, Wildlife Area
combining zone by Ordinance No. 92-046. The map adopted by this ordinance is Exhibit R.
The 1992 map and ordinance are the applicable law and map for these properties. The
properties do not contain sites mapped as Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat. Ordinance No.
94-021 and its map, Exhibit S, are the currently applicable ordinance and map that protect this
Goal 5 habitat. The WA zone specifically allows resort development.
The Board finds that the BelveronNandevert and Pine Forest properties are within the WA
overlay, but that the WA overlay, and the related Goal 5 provisions and ESEE analysis, elected
to expressly permit destination resorts as conflicting uses, provided that they are not located
within the Deer Migration Priority Area. Consequently, the Board finds that the properties are
not located 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
g.
Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South
County Regional Problem Solving Group
The Board finds that a copy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Area for
Regional Problem Solving map dated March 1999, Exhibit T, show that none of the lands
proposed to be add to the County's destination resort map are located in this wildlife priority
area.
Page 22 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
12. DSL Cline Buttes Map Amendment
Table 6 - Destination Resort Map Eligibility
sit
onaktettatA
Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing
population of 100,000
Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have a UGB
with a population of 100,000. The City of Bend's 2010
population, according to US Census is 76,639. All of the
Bend urban area is located inside the City limits. No other
city within 24 air miles of Deschutes County has a population
over 100,000.
112'�—WET
On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2
forest lands which are not subject to an
approved Goal exception
I1 v;YBSC
Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have
predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands
(Ordinance 92-002). The Map of State of Oregon Showing
Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process dated
RI December 1984, also, shows that the subject property does
not contain cubic foot site class 1 & 2 forest land. This is the
map that the State of Oregon prepared to show forest lands
and Goal 5 resource lands that must be excluded from
destination resort mapping
tcaTit` .coral •tle the DSL-, Cline,Buttesite not
z ne. ax t o X45300 160 acres hoes: ha ei
sz. w ae v
aEi Ar a S1�AllkprveaX" whiff
ple of y�yslateyaggregate r
stiiltpe 15 attired 47
vet p
o gye
Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as
listed below, as generally mapped by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) in July 1984 and as further refined
through development of comprehensive plan
provisions implementing this requirement
0
ardeort •s eto,
o6 sites laggregate, .0.
of a destinattopeso
vena one IS notrdet fled as a cpnfl gtfng use an
rgjTlibitedillt, de to protect this• Goal`5resource
Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not mapped
by ODFW as within any of the Especially sensitive big game
habitat identified in Ordinance 92-002, the ordinance that
adopted the County's inventory of such areas. See also,
Ordinance 92-041. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not located
in any of the areas shown on the Map of State of Oregon
Showing Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting
Process dated December 1984 that shows all especially
sensitive big game habitat mapped by ODFW in July 1984.
pDit-plica
nt complies ?he 'DSL ClineButtes properties jTax°-
ts5102 5103"5104 5200'.and5300] constitute one site of
contiguous: acres Tax of 5300 alone'meets;the.160.
acre; minimum. lotrsize as it 15 1,604acres, 1' - _
Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within
the Metolius sub -basin, the only area of critical state concern
in Deschutes County.
Aoobticant:compties The ODSL Cline Buttes site is not`mapped-
IEW. as Especially sensitive big game habitat,:Tumalo
Deer,Winter Range Metolius Deer Winter Range; Antelope
inter Range, Wildlife Priority Area or Elk Habitat Area,
eas theCounty has chosen to protect (Ordinances 92-002
;are
Sot
ilere
=enable
sinYctiop';
t -in the.;
Areas of Critical State Concern
Page 23 of40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 6 - Destination Resort Map Eligibility
1.77
Wildlife Priority Area,
Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a
0 Deschutes County designated wildlife management overlay
area nor is it mapped as a Wildlife Priority Area identified on
the 1999 ODFW ma..
Farm or forest land within one mile outside of Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a
urban growth boundaries mile of a UGB.
Platted subdivisions
Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a
platted subdivision.
Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture
(MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR -10) zones
Not applicable . The DSL Cline Buttes site is zoned EFU-SC
and is not irrigated nor does it possess any water rights.
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
tilf,'ip"{e"e
Not applicable. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a
cluster development.
Page 24 of 40 - Exhibit 13 to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 7 - Map Amendment Procedures
The deadline for applications for the first eligibility
map amendment shall be the first Tuesday in Q
September by 5:00 p.m.
Applicant complies. DSL's agent submitted the Cline Buttes
site DR Map Amendment application on September 7, 2010.
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 Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent
eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish a El Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map
notice announcing opportunities for property since periodic review.
owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility
map.
oal
Any additional applications filed after the deadline Applicant complies. DSL's agent submitted the Cline Buttes
in DCC 22.23.010(C) will be processed at the end 2 site application on September 7, 2010. Furthermore, no
of the next 30 -month cycle. applications were received after September 7, 2010.
% siotero
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
Applicant complies. DSL's agent submitted the Cline Buttes
Q site transportation impact analysis to demonstrate
consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule. Specific
findings are cited below.
19 See note 16 above.
Page 25 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Table 7 - Map Amendment Procedures
Procedures
Findings
Multiple applications shall be consolidated
Applicant complies. All amendments as noted in these
findings are being consolidated and processed concurrently.
13. Supplemental Findings Applicable to the DSL Cline Buttes requested Destination
Resort Overlay Map Amendment
The following findings supplement the findings and conclusions contained in the DSL Cline
Buttes table, above, by discussing certain criteria in greater detail. Where relevant, the exhibit
references are to the Relevant Facts document submitted by Belveron Real Estate Partners,
LLC.
a. Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more
The following relevant facts support Deschutes County's determination that land being added to
the destination resort map is over 24 air miles from a UGB with an existing population of
100,000 or more:20
1. The City of Bend is located within 24 air miles of all properties proposed for inclusion
on the Deschutes County destination resort map and for DR overlay zoning.
2. According to the 2010 US Census, the City of Bend had a population of 76,639
persons. This is shown by Exhibit A, a complete list of the populations of Oregon
cities and counties on April 1, 2010 compiled by the State of Oregon Office of
Economic Analysis from US Bureau of Census records.
3. The City of Bend urban growth boundary is the same as its City limits. This is shown
by a comparison of the City's Bend Area General Plan map dated March 1, 2011,
Exhibit B, and the Bend Urban Area Proposed General Plan Map dated 12/12/2008
prepared by the City of Bend, Exhibit C. Exhibit B shows the City limits with a blue
line. Exhibit C shows the location of the existing UGB with a light gray border. A
comparison of the two maps shows that the boundaries are the same.
No urban growth boundary other than the City of Bend UGB is located within 24 air miles of any
of the properties that may be added to the destination resort map. This fact can be confirmed
20 See note 18, above.
Page 26 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
by a review of Exhibit A and a State of Oregon map that is marked Exhibit D. Exhibit D is an
Oregon Department of Transportation map that is drawn to scale that shows county boundaries
and the locations of a number of cities.
Board finds that the DSL Cline Buttes site is not within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing
population of 100,000 or more.
b. Not a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land
identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service
No site being added to the destination resort map is a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of
unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service SCS is a
federal agency currently known as the National Resources Conservation Service NRCS and
the US Department of Agriculture prepared a Soil Survey of Deschutes County, Oregon. The
survey includes maps of agricultural soils. This is the soil survey that applies to land in
Deschutes County that is used in land use planning to determine soil types. Deschutes
County's GIS Department has created an application that superimposes the NRCS soil maps on
County maps.
There are no unique soils in Deschutes County according to Chad L. McGrath, the Pacific NW
Soil Survey Region Leader/State Soil Scientist of the NRCS. Exhibit E.
The Board finds that the DSL Cline Buttes site not on a site of 50 or more contiguous acres of
unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service.
c. Not within three miles of farm land within a High -Value Crop Area
Commercial Farms
When Deschutes County mapped destination resorts in 1992, it determined that there are no high
value crop areas in Deschutes County. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 92-002, pages 7-9. The
same conclusion applies today and demonstrates that the DSL Cline Buttes site is not within three
miles of a High -Value Crop Area. The High Value Crop Area requirement is imposed by State
law, ORS 197.455(1) (B). The term "High Value Crop Area" is defined by ORS 197.435(2) as:
"High value crop area" means an area in which there is a concentration of
commercial farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross
value of $1, 000 per acre per year. These crops and products include field crops,
small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts or vegetables, dairying, livestock feedlots or
Christmas trees as these terms are used in the 1983 County and State
Agricultural Estimates prepared by the Oregon State University Extension
Service. The "high value crop area" designation is used for the purpose of
minimizing conflicting uses in resort siting and does not revise the requirements
of an agricultural land goal or administrative rules interpreting the goal.
To be a high value crop area, there must be a "concentration" of commercial farms capable of
producing a minimum gross value of $1000 per acre per year. The State -acknowledged
definition of the term "commercial farm" found in DCC 18.040.030 is:
"Commercial farm" as used in DCC 18.16 means those land tracts shown on the 1991
Assessor's records as contiguous ownership tracts under one name (or separated only
by a road), zoned EFU, receiving special assessment for farm use and in the top 90
percent of assessed farm use values (arranged in ascending order). These farms are
identified in the resource element of the comprehensive plan.
Page 27 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
All commercial farms in Deschutes County are listed in an inventory that is a part of the
Resource Element of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. There are no identified
commercial farms within 3 -miles of the DSL Cline Buttes site. Because the County has
previously determined that the County contains no high value crop areas, because no party has
submitted any evidence to the contrary, and there is presently no concentration of commercial
farms within three miles of these properties, the County concludes that the DSL Clines Butte
site is not within three miles of a high value crop area.
d. On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject
to an approved Goal exception
The location of Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands and especially sensitive big game
habitat was determined by the State of Oregon in 1984. These areas are shown on a map
entitled "Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process" dated December 1984. This is
the map referenced in the State's destination resort law.
Based on this map, the Board finds that the DSL Cline Buttes site is not located on
predominately Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an approved
exception.
e. Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped
by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in July 1984 and as further
refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this
requirement
A map prepared by ODFW in July 1984 shows the areas in the State of Oregon that were
mapped as especially sensitive big game habitat. The map shows that the DSL Cline Buttes
site was not mapped as containing especially sensitive big game habitat. The DSL Cline Buttes
site is not mapped as a WA overlay zone. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not located in the
Tumalo deer winter range, Metolius deer winter range or the antelope winter range east of Bend
near Horse Ridge and Millican. Those zones contain all ODFW 1984 mapped especially
sensitive big game habitat found in Deschutes County.
The Board finds that, based on these maps, the DSL Cline Buttes site is not located on lands
designated especially sensitive big game habitat by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
in July 1984 and as further refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions
implementing this requirement.
f. 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
The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within or located on an area protected as a Goal 5 resource site
where all conflicting uses have been prohibited. Tax Lot 5300, 160 acres, does have a Surface
Mining Impact Area (SMIA) overlay which is associated with a couple of minor slate aggregate
extraction sites. This aggregate resource is scheduled to be used (and exhausted) in the
development of the destination resort. The SMIA zone permitted and conditional uses in the
underlying zone are allowed. Consequently, the County has elected not to prohibit all conflicting
uses, such as resorts. Rather, the SMIA zone allows all uses permitted in the underlying zone,
but subject to certain restrictions. The Board finds that the DSL Cline Buttes site is not on an
area protected as a Goal 5 resource where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect
the Goal 5 resource.
Page 28 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
g.
Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South
County Regional Problem Solving Group
The DSL Cline Buttes site is not located within any identified Wildlife Priority Area as identified
on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Area for Regional Problem Solving map
dated March 1999, Exhibit T, show that none of the lands proposed to be add to the County's
destination resort map are located in this wildlife priority area.
14. Transportation Planning Rule21
The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660-012-0060, requires local
governments to determine whether amendments to their acknowledged comprehensive plan will
"significantly affect" existing or planned transportation facilities. If a significant effect is found,
then local governments are obligated to put in place one or more measures to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance
standards of the facility. The following findings address the TPR in light of Root v. Klamath
County, _ Or LUBA_ (LUBA No. 2010-078, April 19, 2011), and the Oregon Court of Appeals
decision in Willamette Oaks v. City of Eugene, 232 Or App 29, 220 P3d 445 (2009).
A. Requirements of the TPR
In the Willamette Oaks decision, the Court of Appeals held that the City of Eugene was
required to determine whether a zone change would significantly affect transportation facilities
prior to the approval of the zone change. In other words, the court held that the city could not
defer a finding of significant effect until a later date, presumably in connection with development
of the underlying property. The TPR entails a two-step process. The first step is to determine
whether there is a significant effect, while step -two identifies the various measures local
governments may take to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified
function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio) of
the facility. Willamette Oaks dealt only with step one of the TPR. The court expressly held that
the city could not permissibly grant the zone change without first evaluating, pursuant to OAR
660-012-0060(1), whether the change would significantly affect transportation facilities.
OAR 660-012-0060(1) provides:
Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly
affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local
government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2)
of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level
of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or
land use regulation amendment significantly affects a
transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of
map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional
classification system; or
21 OAR 660-012-0060. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS 600/OAR 660/660 012.html
Page 29 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period
identified in the adopted transportation system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that
would result in types or levels of travel or access
that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or
planned transportation facility below the minimum
acceptable performance standard identified in the
TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or
planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to perform below the minimum
acceptable performance standard identified in the
TSP or comprehensive plan.
B. Finding of Significant Effect
(1) VandeverUBelveron/Pine Forest Property
The record in this case includes two memoranda from Kittelson & Associates, Inc., one which
deals with the Pine Forest, Belveron and Vandevert properties (the "Vandevert Analysis"), and
the other that deals with the DSL Cline Buttes site (the "DSL Analysis"). In these findings, both
studies are referred to as the "Traffic Studies." The Traffic Studies are expressly incorporated
by reference into these findings. The Vandevert Analysis concludes that the proposed
amendments will significantly affect transportation facilities. In particular, the Vandevert
Analysis concluded that the amendments adding the Pine Forest, Belveron and Vandevert
properties (referred to in the Vandevert Analysis as the "Forest Service" parcel) would reduce
the performance of the South Century Drive/Spring River Road and US 97Nandevert
intersections below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan. This conclusion results in a finding of significant affect under OAR 660-
012-0060(1)(c)(B). Consequently, in order to comply with OAR 660-012-0060(1), the County
specifically finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the
amendments applying the Destination Resort Overlay to the Pine Forest, Belveron and
Vandevert properties would "significantly affect" existing transportation facilities as described in
OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B) by reducing the performance standard of an existing transportation
facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan.
(2) DSL Cline Buttes site
The DSL Analysis concludes that the proposed amendments will significantly affect
transportation facilities. In particular, Table 3 of the DSL Analysis identified six separate
intersections which would be significantly affected be development of a resort on the DSL Cline
Buttes site. Consequently, in order to comply with OAR 660-012-0060(1), the County
specifically finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the
amendments applying the Destination Resort Overlay to the DSL Cline Buttes site would
"significantly affect" existing transportation facilities as described in OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B)
Page 30 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
by reducing the performance standard of an existing transportation facility below the minimum
acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
C. TPR Step Two: Maintaining Compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(1)
Because the County has determined that the amendments will result in a significant effect, the
County must employ one or more measures identified in OAR 660-012-0060 (2), which
provides:
(2) Where a local government determines that there would be
a significant effect, compliance with section (1) [OAR 660-012-
0060(1)] shall be accomplished through one or a combination of
the following:
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land
uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity,
and performance standards of the transportation facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to
provide transportation facilities, improvements or services
adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent
with the requirements of this division; such amendments
shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with
section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation
finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service
will be provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design
requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and
meet travel needs through other modes.
(d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function,
capacity or performance standards of the transportation
facility.
(e) Providing other measures as a condition of
development or through a development agreement or
similar funding method, including transportation system
management measures, demand management or minor
transportation improvements. Local governments shall as
part of the amendment specify when measures or
improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be
provided.
Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a) the County has elected to impose a condition of approval
prohibiting resort development on any of the three added properties until a resort application
complying with state and local law is approved by the County, and such application includes a
Traffic Impact Analysis which complies with the TPR and ensures that resort development will
not significantly affect any transportation facility. The County notes that ORS 197.460(4)
requires resort applicants to prepare a similar study. ORS 197.460(4) provides, in part:
"the county shall require the applicant to submit a traffic impact
analysis of the proposed development that includes measures to
avoid or mitigate a proportionate share of adverse effects of
Page 31 of 40 - Exhibit 6 to Ordinance 2011-001
transportation on state highways and other transportation facilities
affected by the proposed development, including transportation
facilities in the county and in cities whose urban growth
boundaries are within the distance specified in this subsection."
The condition imposed by the County reads:
The County may not approve a destination resort on any of the
three properties added to the resort map pursuant to these
amendments until:
a. The applicant for resort development has complied with the
version of ORS 197.460(4) then in effect regarding a resort -
specific traffic impact analysis.
b. The destination resort application has addressed and
incorporated as a part of the development plan, the
transportation improvements identified in the Vandevert
Analysis or the DSL Analysis (including the Interchange
Requirement decision described in the 2005 Group MacKenzie
study), as applicable, necessary to mitigate the finding of
significant effect.
c. The applicant has prepared a traffic impact analysis that in all
respects conforms to the requirements of the Transportation
Planning Rule and ORS 197.460(4), and demonstrates that
resort development on the property may occur in a manner
which will not significantly affect a transportation facility or, if a
subsequent significant effect is found, resort development may
not proceed until measures are in place as described in
OAR 660-012-0060(2) to assure that resort development is
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards of affected transportation facilities. If
the transportation improvements identified in this subsequent
traffic study differ from those identified in the Vandevert Study
or the DSL Study, the applicant shall make the improvements
identified in this subsequent study.
The above condition is imposed pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a). By imposing this
condition, the County has assured compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(1) by adopting a
measure that demonstrate that allowed uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity,
and performance standards of the transportation facility. No trips may be added to the
transportation system under these amendments until such time as nay necessary transportation
improvements are in place. A complete prohibition on resort development until such time as
specific identified improvements are made or until such time as the improvements identified in a
subsequent traffic analysis are made, ensures that the uses allowed on the subject properties
are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the identified
facilities.
D. Opposition Testimony
Central Oregon LandWatch has stated that it:
Page 32 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
"disagrees with the theory of the Applicants' attomeys who believe
that with a summary conclusion of 'significant affects' that the
Goal 12 process required by OAR 660-012-0060 can be
essentially delayed to the time of actual application for a
destination resort."
Central Oregon LandWatch Written Testimony, September 23, 2011. The County rejects the
assertion that the County has delayed the consideration of the TPR.
The record in this case contains the Traffic Studies which, together, address all three properties
added to the resort map. Together, the Traffic Studies establish the total number of units which
could be built on the added properties. The Traffic Studies then apply a trip generation factor to
the total number of units to determine the estimated trip generation potential for all the
properties added. Based on the estimated trip generation, the Traffic Studies then analyze the
potential impacts to transportation facilities. Based on the analysis of numerous transportation
facilities and the potential impacts to these facilities, the Traffic Studies then conclude that resort
development would "significantly affect" several transportation facilities within the meaning of
OAR 660-012-0060. The Traffic Studies then identify specific transportation improvements
which could be made to mitigate traffic generated by the resorts. Based on the significant effect
determination, the County has imposed a condition of approval consistent with OAR 660-012-
0060(2) to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and
performance standards of affected transportation facilities.
Simply because the County is requiring a second TPR -level traffic analysis at the time of
development (which is also consistent with the similar obligation imposed by ORS 197.460(4))
does not mean that the County has deferred compliance with the TPR. As LUBA has said:
"[U]nder the TPR if a comprehensive plan or zoning map
amendment will allow new or more intense uses to be developed
in the future without additional comprehensive plan or zoning map
amendments and those uses would generate traffic that would
significantly affect transportation facilities (i.e., cause them to fail),
a local government must identify the measures it will put in place
to prevent such failures.
Stated differently, neither the significant effects determination nor
the identification of measures that will be employed to avoid
significant effects can be deferred to future decision making that
will post-date the plan or zoning map amendment that makes
those uses possible."
Root v. Klamath County, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2010-077; 2010-079, April 4, 2011, slip op
30, Holston, concurring). In Root, Klamath County approved an amendment to its resort map to
add approximately 90,000 acres to the map. In addressing the TPR, Klamath County relied on
a transportation letter which, without providing any substantive analysis, concluded that
development of 90,000 acres as resorts would significantly affect transportation facilities. Root,
slip op. 24. LUBA stated:
However, the Kittelson letter did not attempt to analyze or
evaluate how destination resorts allowed under the plan
amendment would significantly affect any transportation facilities
in any of the ways set out in OAR 660-012-0060(1); it simply
assumed that there would be a significant effect on unspecified
Page 33 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
transportation facilities if some unspecified portion of the 90,000
acres were developed with an unspecified number of destination
resorts of an unspecified size at unspecified locations.
Id. In contrast, here both studies assumed the additional properties would be developed as
resorts, that they would be developed at a specific density, and that they would be developed in
the near term. Unlike the Klamath County situation, the significant effect determination is not "a
purely pro forma finding of significant affect on unspecified facilities unsupported by any
analysis at all, and then requiring that the TPR be addressed at the time of specific destination
resort development[.]" Id. At 26.
With respect to the adoption of measures under OAR 660-012-0060(2), the County has not
deferred the determination of how to address the identified significant effects until at later point
in time. To the contrary, both traffic studies identify the transportation facilities impacted by
potential development and then identify the specific transportation mitigation measures
necessary to ensure that the affected facilities will continue to operate consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards. The condition of approval requires
that the identified improvements be constructed or, in the alternative, if the traffic study prepared
at the time of eventual resort development identifies different improvements necessary to avoid
a significant effect, the resort applicant will be required to make the improvements identified in
the more timely study.
The County's election to impose the condition of approval requiring additional TPR -level
analysis at a future date is not a deferral of the TPR, rather, it is simply a recognition that at the
present time it is entirely unclear whether any of the properties will be developed with resorts,
when such development may occur, the ultimate transportation impacts of a specific proposal,
the size of a specific resort, whether additional transportation improvements may be constructed
in the intervening years which would affect the analysis, or whether an increase in background
traffic might demand greater transportation improvements. Rather than a deferral, the condition
is a safeguard to ensure that resort development does not significantly affect transportation
facilities at the time of development, which could be years from now. Also, it is a reflection of
the fact that regardless of what mitigation measures might be required based on current
transportation studies, ORS 197.460(4) requires resort developers to mitigate adverse effects to
transportation facilities at the time of resort development. Consequently, any improvement
required under the current analysis may be entirely inappropriate or inadequate to address
future transportation issues.
Central Oregon LandWatch also has argued the DSL Study should not have relied on a
December 2004 Group Mackenzie traffic study because that report was significantly revised in
2005. In particular, LandWatch argues that the improvements necessary to mitigate a
significant effect at the US 20 and Cook Avenue intersection involve a full interchange rather
than signalization. LandWatch does not challenge the finding of significant effect under
OAR 660-012-0060(1), only whether the County has adopted the appropriate measure under
OAR 660-012-0060(2). To address LandWatch's concern, in addition to the measures identified
in Table 3 of the DSL Study, the County adopts, as a measure under OAR 660-012-0060(2), the
requirement to construct an interchange as addressed in the 2005 Group Mackenzie study
provided by LandWatch (the "Interchange Requirement"). With respect to LandWatch's
concerns regarding the ultimate cost of the interchange, that question is irrelevant to either the
significant effect determination under OAR 660-012-0060(1) or the implementation measure
under OAR 660-012-0060(2).
With respect to the DSL Cline Buttes site, the record includes the DSL Study and the excerpt of
the Group Mackenzie study provided by LandWatch, both of which the Board specifically
incorporates by reference in these findings. Together, these studies demonstrate that resort
development on the DSL Cline Buttes site would significantly affect certain transportation
Page 34 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
facilities. Based on this determination, the County has identified the specific transportation
improvements necessary to assure that the affected transportation facilities operate consistent
with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards.
(1). Data Gaps
Central Oregon LandWatch appears to argue that the County should require some higher level
of specificity with respect to the transportation improvements required to mitigate a significant
effect under the TPR. The County rejects that position. As set forth above, the Traffic Studies,
identify a reasonable worst case scenario regarding the size of potential resorts based on their
acreage and applicable resort density standards. The studies identify the impacts to
transportation facilities, the improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts. On top of that, the
County has imposed a development prohibition until such time as a resort is actually proposed.
Absent specific resort proposals, it is impossible to perform transportation studies with any
greater detail because many required components of traffic studies which would be required at
the time of development are unknown at the present time. Under ODOT's 2005 Development
Review Guidelines, the following components are required for a traffic impact study, none of
which are known at the present time:
• Traffic volumes in the year of opening without resort development
• Traffic operations in the year of opening without resort development
• Traffic volumes in the year of opening with the resort development
• Traffic operations in the year of opening with the resort development
• Traffic volumes at the end of planning period without resort development
• Traffic operations at the end of the planning period without resort development
• Traffic volumes at the end of the planning period with resort development
• Traffic operations at the end of the planning period with resort development.
Because these factors are unknown—primarily because it is impossible to predict at the
present time the size of any particular resort, when it is planned to open, or whether there will be
intervening development which would affect the transportation analysis—it is impossible to
specifically identify the precise measures which would be required at the time of resort
development to assure that resort development is consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards of all potentially affected transportation facilities, as
required under OAR 660-012-0060(1). The mitigation identified in the Traffic Studies is
sufficient to remedy the identified significant effects if the subject properties were developed
today with resorts generating the traffic identified in the studies. Because, however, it is
impossible to know at the present time whether, when and to what extent, the subject properties
will be developed for resorts, it is appropriate to impose certain conditions of approval to ensure
that when and if resorts are developed, they are developed consistent with the planned function,
capacity, and performance standards of affected transportation facilities.
12. Statewide Planning Goals.
The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate factual
base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with statewide planning goals. The
following findings demonstrate that Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 comply.
Page 35 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement was met through this adoption process because these
amendments will receive 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, Land Use Planning was met because ORS 197.455(2) allows for such an amendment
process. 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
Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, and Goal 4. Forest Lands, and Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic
and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Local
governments are only required to apply Goal 5 to a post -acknowledgement plan amendment
when the amendment allows a new use and the new use "could be" a conflicting use with a
particular Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list. OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b). A
conflicting use "is a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use
regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource[.]" OAR 660-023-0010(1).
When identifying potential conflicting uses, the Goal 5 rules expressly limit the examination of
uses to those uses that are allowed either outright or conditionally within the zones applied to
the resource site. Here, the use allowed on the three subject properties is a destination resort,
which is a conditional use in the EFU and F2 zones.
The Pine Forest, Vandevert and Belveron properties are zoned with the Wildlife Area Combining
Zone (WA). The WA zone implements the County's Goal 5 program with respect to the Deer
Migration Corridor. Subject to DCC 18.113, destination resorts are allowed as a conditional use
in that portion of the WA zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as long
as the property is not in an area designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area" on the 1999
ODFW map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. Consequently, in
the WA zone, destination resorts are not a new use that could adversely affect a significant Goal
5 resource within the meaning of Goal 5. Destination resorts have been allowed in the WA zone
for a long period of time and, when the county adopted and applied the WA zone, the county
expressly determined that it would permit destination resorts, despite the conflicts with the Goal
5 resource, in areas with the WA overlay, but outside the Deer Migration Priority Area. As
neither the Pine Forest nor the BelveronNandevert properties are within the Deer Migration
Priority Area, the County's Goal 5 implementing regulations expressly permit the County to add
these two properties to the Destination Resort Overlay Map, without applying Goal 5 or
undertaking a new ESEE analysis.
The County's program to achieve Goal 5, both through comprehensive plan, and the County's
land use regulations implementing Goal 5, allow destination resorts as conflicting uses.
Ordinance No. 2001-019 amended the Resource Management Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and Chapter 18.88 of the Deschutes County Code. As a part of these amendments, the
County amended the ESEE analysis for with Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor by expressly
permitting resort development within the WA zone, but outside the Deer Migration Priority Area:
"The Board finds that the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor
and the conflicting destination resort use are important relative to
each other and, based on OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) and the
amended ESEE analysis, the destination resort use should be
allowed in a limited way that protects the Goal 5 resource.
Specifically, destination resorts should be limited to areas within
the destination resort overlay that are outside of the Deer
Migration Priority Area."
Page 36 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Although Central Oregon LandWatch has not raised any Goal 5 related objections to this
proposal, in other cases before the Land Use Board of Appeals it has argued that new roads
and traffic associated with destination resorts may affect Goal 5 resources. These findings
address that concern.
With respect to new roads, and traffic associated with such roads, the Pine Forest, Belveron,
and Vandevert properties all abut one or more public roads. Therefore, no off-site access roads
will be required to provide access to any future resort on these properties. Moreover, even if a
new access road from South Century Drive or Vandevert were needed (together with the traffic
associated with such new road), any road would go through the WA zone. As discussed above,
destination resorts are permitted in the WA zone. Consequently, the Board finds that even if
new access roads were required, such roads would not be a "new use" permitted by these
amendments because (a) roads and traffic are not new uses in the WA zone and (b) access
roads and the associated traffic are an integral component of destination resorts and are
permitted as a part of a destination resort and currently allowed in the WA zone.
The DSL Cline Buttes site contains the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA).
The SMIA is a Goal 5 resource overlay. No other Goal 5 resources are located on the DSL
Cline Buttes site, nor do any roads which may be used to access the property go through any
Goal 5 resource area. The purpose of the SMIA zone is to protect the surface mining resources
of Deschutes County from new development which conflicts with the removal and processing of
a mineral and aggregate resource, while allowing owners of property near a surface mining site
reasonable use of their property. Resorts, however, do not represent new uses which could be
conflicting uses for purposes of the OAR 660-023-0250 within the SMIA zone. Resorts are uses
permitted conditionally within the underlying EFU zoning, and all uses permitted conditionally
within the underlying zone are allowed by the SMIA standards. Consequently, the County's
existing program to protect the Goal 5 resource expressly permits resorts within the SMIA
overlay. As such, resorts do not constitute a "new use" that could be conflicting uses with the
Goal 5 resource site
The DSL Cline Buttes site will be developed with road access through either the existing and
adjacent Eagle Crest Destination Resort or through the surrounding future Thornburgh
Destination Resort which abuts the DSL Cline Buttes properties on 3 sides. The roads to Eagle
Crest already exist connecting to the local and regional transportation network—this access
strategy requires no new road development that would impact wildlife habitat or activities.
Access through the future Thornburgh Destination Resort will use roads already planned for
and/or constructed on Thornburgh land- these roads either: already exist (Thornburgh Road to
Eagle Drive), will connect directly to a county arterial (Main entry road connecting to Cline Falls
Highway), or exercise an existing access easement through BLM lands (proposed Service Road
to serve Thornburgh's main facility and infrastructure). The anchor Thornburgh destination
resort development already abuts or has direct access to existing public roads. Therefore, no
off-site access roads will be required to be constructed to provide access to the DSL Cline
Buttes site. Most importantly, no roads serving the DSL Cline Buttes site would go through any
mapped Goal 5 resource sites. Consequently, the addition of the DSL Cline Buttes site to the
resort map will not allow any new use which could be a conflicting use with a particular Goal 5
resource site.
Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality and Goal 7, Natural Hazards are met
because 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.
Page 37 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
Goal 8, Recreational Needs specifies the rural areas consisting of agricultural, forest, rural
development, and natural resources that are eligible for siting destination resorts.22 According
to the Comprehensive Plan, the numerous beneficial impacts of destination resorts are
recognized by Statewide Planning Goal 8 and by implementing statutes.
With the exception of one ineligible tax lot (151200-00-05101) proposed by the Oregon
Department of State Lands, the three map amendment applications comply with Goal 8. Goal 8
requires a destination resort to be on a site 160 acres or more, therefore tax lot 151200-00-
05101 does not comply because it is an isolated 40 acre parcel. Deschutes County Destination
Resort Zone requires all destination resorts to have a minimum of 160 contiguous acres of land.
This chapter was found as part of periodic review to be in compliance with the County's
comprehensive plan and statewide planning goals.
Goal 9, Economic Development is met because the map amendments 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, 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.
Goal 10, Housing is met even though the County is generally not subject to housing
requirements because these destination resorts do provide additional housing, albeit, generally
in the higher end range.
Goal 11, Public Facilities is not applicable to destination resorts because destination resorts
are specifically allowed urban -type services such as sewer and water.
Goal 12, Transportation complies with this goal as discussed previously in the sections
regarding the Transportation Planning Rule. Goal 12 is the Transportation Planning Rule.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation 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.23 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(G)(1)).
Goal 14, Urbanization 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.
10. Consistency with Deschutes County Comprehensive Pian
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,
22 http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goa18.pdf
23 DCC 18.113.050(B)(5) and (11c)
Page 38 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
streams, rivers and significant wetlands. As demonstrated above, Deschutes County's map
amendments, with the exception of one ineligible tax lot (151200-00-05101) proposed by the
Oregon Department of State Lands, comply with the statewide planning goals by continuing to
protect certain agricultural and forest lands, and acknowledged Goal 5 natural resources.
Therefore, because the County's comprehensive plan was adopted to comply with those goals
and had been acknowledged as such, the new map amendments also comply with the County's
comprehensive plan policies and goals, which are rarely more restrictive than the statewide
planning goals.
Lastly, destination resort 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 Overlay 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.
11. Conditions of Approval
The condition of approval applicable to all of the land being added to the resort map pursuant to
these amendments is as follows:
A. ORS 197.455(1)(f):
"The County has adopted, as the relevant wildfire protection plans described in
ORS 197.455(1)(1), the Upper Deschutes River Natural Resources Coalition
Revised Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Any resort developed on the three
properties added to the resort map shall be required to comply with the terms
and conditions of the applicable wildfire protection plan, as such plan may be
amended from time to time. In addition, any resort developed on any of the three
properties added to the resort map shall be required to be developed consistent
with FireWise standards and shall, as a condition of approval to any resort
development, be required to become recognized as a FireWise community. If
the County determines that, at the time of resort development, that the adopted
wildfire plans and FireWise community standards are insufficient to assure that a
site can be developed without being at a high overall risk of fire, then the County
shall require, as a condition of approval, the adoption of an alternate wildfire
protection plan that demonstrates the site can be developed without being at a
high overall risk of fire."
B. OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a)
The County may not approve a destination resort on any of the three
properties added to the resort map pursuant to these amendments until:
a. The applicant for resort development has complied with the version of
ORS 197.460(4) then in effect regarding a resort -specific traffic impact
analysis.
b. The destination resort application has addressed and incorporated as
a part of the development plan, the transportation improvements
identified in the Vandevert Analysis or the DSL Analysis (including the
Interchange Requirement decision described in the 2005 Group
Page 39 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
MacKenzie study), as applicable, necessary to mitigate the finding of
significant effect.
c. The applicant has prepared a traffic impact analysis that in all
respects conforms to the requirements of the Transportation Planning
Rule and ORS 197.460(4), and demonstrates that resort development
on the property may occur in a manner which will not significantly
affect a transportation facility or, if a subsequent significant effect is
found, resort development may not proceed until measures are in
place as described in OAR 660-012-0060(2) to assure that resort
development is consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards of affected transportation facilities. If the
transportation improvements identified in this subsequent traffic study
differ from those identified in the Vandevert Study or the DSL Study,
the applicant shall make the improvements identified in this
subsequent study.
12. Conclusion
Pine Forest Development LLC
Based on the findings stated above, Pine Forest Development LLC demonstrates that tax lot
201100-00-00103 can be added to Deschutes County's Destination Resort Maps cited in DCC
Titles 23 and 18.
Belveron Real Estate LLC and Vandevert Road LLC
Based on the findings stated above, Belveron Real Estate LLC and Vandevert Road LLC
demonstrate that tax lots 201100-00-00104 and 201100-00-00105 can be added to Deschutes
County's Destination Resort Maps cited in DCC Titles 23 and 18.
DLS Cline Buttes Site
Based on the findings stated above, the agents/applicants for the DSL Cline Buttes site
demonstrate that tax lots 151200-00-05300, 151200-00-05200, 151200-00-05102, 151200-00-
05103 and 151200-00-05104 can be added to Deschutes County's Destination Resort Maps
cited in DCC Titles 23 and 18.
Attachment 1 - Parcel Based Maps Showing Grandfathered Properties Retaining a Destination
Resort Designation
Page 40 of 40 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001
a
Caldera,
Springs
1
1
City of
La Pine
Legend
State Highway
Exhibit'B" Map Index
County Boundary
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Index Map
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 2 4 8
12
Miles
Ogobar13.2011
ofigare. eine p.p.. am. mem. on Demme. Csuno af
Jefferson County
icer T 41R 09 y1,
t �a
tr.,
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r j Section Line
I Exhibit"B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
*?. Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 1 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0z5 1 1.5
Miles
(pother 13, 2011
Jefferson County
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
h.11 H
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 2 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 a5 1 1s
October 13,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
I Exhibit "8" Map Index
Unincorporated Communityxg=; Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 3 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 023 0.5
Otober13.2011
1 1.5
Miles
IMP Ala*
Legend
State Highway
1 Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
r Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 4 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
JV
0 0.25 os
October 13, 2011
1.5
Miles
Legend
State Highway
{ Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
r Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community,.;_. Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 5 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
October13. 2011
NE E
IMO
!an
SIM
,�....._
M..MEN
En
.E.1
Ih
Legend
Ate State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r ' Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
® Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 6 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 05
October 13.2011
1 1.5
Mlles
Legend
State Highway
I-7 Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' 1 Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 7 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1
OUober13,2011
1.5
Miles
DSCIAWR
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
..d Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 8 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
Mites
Ogober 13, 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
I Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
kr ' Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 9 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Mil
CMobe113.2011
won to mart
06
07
C6
o
09
10
11
12
1e
17
16
19
20 21
15
T. 15 R. 09
22
14
13
1
24
30
31 32
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
,7414-1-. Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 10 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
Miles
October 13,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r l Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 11 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
October-n*2011
1.5
Miles
L1/41PINiI ietre��fri111.111111ta Erg/
IBM
HeTTLIralill
sir
�el Ira
�te-vi man monrnfrargt, nui
fll fl Illi tin_ nmrint'_■
,14
a'
MI Aga Nisie
-sena 711
n —
Rain SAWA
Manna
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1 Exhibit"B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 12 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
&Mil
October 13, 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot. Boundary
r i Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 13 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 o.5 1 15
— Miles
Odoberla,2011
Os
a
ya
o3 yrs
oz
of
Crook County
QI
If
08
10
11
12
LIi
^1` iuN. Vpnipr�
18
17
6
-1fi
. Pronghorn
Sft r_
ei
q 41=
15
14 a
13
19
I
20
T.16R.13
21
22
23
24
Rd
1
yq—Morrill
o`
j
/KoRd
.%
e
31
32
33
34
35
3-
IFI
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot. Boundary
r i Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 13 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 o.5 1 15
— Miles
Odoberla,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
,L, Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 14 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
Oaaeee 13. 2011
1.5
-Miles
..8_ _snf..a n•.
.n .ani,.
. S.Np.�p ....i
Arnwa maim
an awn
0. ..n..fl.
..vi ....E4" 4... I1114 IIIMISI
.l
INIIIMPoil
.� 111111101111fOOM=SMIlfs u
MIMEO -. .
Legend
State Highway
r i Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "A" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 15 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1
1.5
ogoler13, 2011
Miles
"
Legend
State Highway
I Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 16 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 1 15
Miles
October 13. 2011
Legend
State Highway
I Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
I Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Mi Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 17 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 025 as 1 1.5
Miles
Opober 13, 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' ..a Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 18 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
a azs as
oaoberra, 2011
is
Miles
Legend
State Highway
': Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 19 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5
October 13, 2011
15
Mlles
Legend
State Highway
FT Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
=. = Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 20 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
an 0.5 1 1.5
tMile
Oaober13.20f
re-wesaDen ioft oral E.
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I ia Exhibit 'B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 21 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
1 1.5
Miles
0 025
Odober13. 2011
Legend
Aze State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
Exhibit'B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 22 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1
1.5
Mites
Otlober 13. 2011
170;-
M6„,,,\\\l\J
e4Yr *' Llnn
1191141 fp II114t1aIll -toad
�AIIa irii opuglu I ant
Aurnain Aimanniirs4hP ei'glf l;HAPJ'ytiWam
_•IH®I 60u111UinaBap111ni11H11111111= tt11
Ytttt
e:In I
112, '11 ma-! X mn11 1 1s m
-011!' 1 4111003 11x11111144111 E11111 II
n..r..aory''ilm' ink
-11'1m19111/1111113.. ournmE
q uP '
Ilu0N151111110ni11111tfl1Ig11111gPh1Xnr 1411i11� 1 _
rIIHI I l Niyn VA Pir 00115 Nnn1113
fiOX nvn 1110nlllll
?nmwry
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
lLL Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 23 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 0.25 0.5 1
Oclaber 13, 2011
1.5
Miles
Legend
State Highway
r - Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit "8" Map Index
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 24 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
(n)
0 025 0.5 1 1.s
Miles
Ococel 13, 2011
Legend
State Highway
r Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
1
Exhibit ''Er Map Index
Unincorporated Community
;:sr E Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 25 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
October 13, 2011
Miles
ANNUM! r y. n eauw, II ni
:MI 1 f IIIIMin i.'Iu 111 latiltnfllllfnu��
nnI I14■ InpMt nun limn -Munn nfmml%
min nits -1 Ylfmminlllll411innllFn
MUM Illn11'' Ilium 111 I HIM nn1■Km1111n1M
zumnil IlIpl n I 11 inn 111111111111111110
' n1111n111111111A linIIIMffllltlllll111111111IIm11114
17 `Int lInyllnnmlnl1 �nllnr IIM mm..
4604 -.-•--- r�-imilinm .ant
�� 'ryIII2 liiwiul. il.
IIIMOM NNW�:II i 1119 -
Ir..21 Ry1011
I�III ,mile
i
11
..nmo7075=ir
.� L
--01 . 111 1
—! 1ul�
h
filjDf mii'nn. n-
ga{mui4I1. n
!!! n —
G n mPlop a narii111l
b.
■... mf
ii I1„frames28 luu �W.IIW.W
x(1111. . T 1 lLV■1
G . . Ilan-gi11Li6' pp� 11� 1. il”.
�o ��� `1p1Ihp MIp n= I11 M.
ix 44:1 Deedon Rd a uIt iimlplmlp trap I al -
F:. - ■ l i�� ■R.m1 Wal r
$ '� I t`13i1�ii `QIP=�
.fir - i p11■1 '-fl,_� I
;II
fr,
Legend
State Highway
r---1 Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit 11B"
Attachment 1
Map 26 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 0.5 1 1.5
-Miles
October 13. 201
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
1 .4 Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 27 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
October 13.2011
Miles
Z"--
104104411•01:4-
rt--4.a leant
ur;.4
0.•rA1X . In
�1/I,.
•.a d__
tire
1i
i
18
Wickiup
Reservoir
a
7
19 20
31
29
32
16
21
26
33
Klamath County
Legend
State Highway
r Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "B" Map Index
Unincorporated Community
„it Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 28 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
October13,2011
iil-1
• 1 i/PP^ni
xur'1 it11�111t1IB11 u:111111
C 1 � ItlnIBBifli
ri11111tlt11111h;'_lp1:1 '=■
Iftb 11111•11tl7 j1 1 /tiNlII mine
�iNBBlll11111. 110111:.. 1111111 �um'i.
• 11111Hd1111_. Itlpf_ watitil:'-taq:
i.yyry::9uf ram-
Inlnitl nrisE ■�'
l�IInPu�',�
gim
wanum 1 1
r 1111 Durant tm
��L• /III1191 li
ni11I 1�Ij—nB1r111 �O
1n1111 .U1 a�n1
tlti•���tl111 ,(�Btlp,��
X011!`
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "8" Map Index
Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary
Grandfather Clause Eligible Property
Exhibit "B"
Attachment 1
Map 29 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-001
V V
0 025 0.5 1 1.s
� •Miles
October 13, 2011
etrou.nid "as.:
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the
Deschutes County Code To Modify the
Deschutes County Zoning Map for the areas
eligible for the Destination Resort Overlay.
*
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-002
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 2011-001 amending the
Deschutes County Destination Resort Map to remove the Destination Resort Comprehensive Plan designation
for some properties and adding that designation to others; and
WHEREAS, this Deschutes County Zoning Map must be amended to implement the new Deschutes
County Destination Resort Map designations; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, public hearings were held on
November 18, 2010, and on January 27, 2011 before the Deschutes County Planning Commission to consider
changes to DCC Title 18, Deschutes County Destination Resort Overlay Zone Map; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2011 the Planning Commission forwarded to the Board a recommendation
of approval to adopt changes to the Destination Resort Map; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public
hearing on May 23, June 27, and September 26, 2011 and concluded that the public will benefit from changes to
the Deschutes County Destination Resort Map; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it in the public interest to adopt amendments to the Deschutes County
Destination Resort Map; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Deschutes County zoning map is amended to apply the
Destination Resort combining zone to properties mapped as eligible for destination resort development as
shown in Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2. The maps attached as Exhibit "A" map shall be known as the county's Destination Resort
Combining Zone Map.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-002
Section . FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B," attached to Ordinance 2011-001
and incorporated by reference herein.
Dated this of , 2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice -Chair
Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER Commissioner
Date of ls` Reading: day of , 2011.
Date of 2"d Reading: day of , 2011.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2011.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-002
4
ITerrebonne
1
1
1
1
1
10 1
1
---J-
MI= EMU
1
1 11
1 Tema!
11.1 =OM WOMB
1
i 17
L_
1
1
1
18, 19r
20
J
AMR MEM
1
Sunriver 22
I
23
1 '
r — — — — - —
I 1
1 27 1 26
1 f7
1
r ---T
1 1
28 1 29s'
MEM IN= MO
Legend
State Highway
j Exhibit "A" Map Index
County Boundary
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Caldera)
Springs
24 1
1
IINM NEM
25 I
I
IIMPI
impmp
City of
La Pine
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit"A" Index Map
to Ordinance 2011-002
VLA
0 2 4
e 12
Miles
Cdober3. 2011
Jefferson County
Legend
State Highway
ni Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 1 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 025 05 1 15
Miles
Oclebe13.2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
' 1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
w Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A' Map 2 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
0 025 o.5 1
1.5
oaober3.2011
Oisanalea
um. Issepanrmomaire. ma mesas. tip.... ExImagel meepta
Jefferson County
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' ...r Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 3 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
0.25 as
1.s
Miles
inxnunow ea ...Ere 4, pmems no< row
Odober3. 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
a Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 4 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
0 0.25 0.5
oaober3,2011
1.5
Miles
can., hien bneas. onnurt bp
Legend
State Highway
r Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' ..a Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 5 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
0 025 05 1 1.5
Q Miles
October 3, 2011
Legend
afr Slate Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit "A' Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 6 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
miles
otluber3,2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r l Section Line
! Exhibit "A" Map Index
MI Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 7 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
Odober3.2011
Miles
tuna 4ccenvepf ese.r be, Nes. m.o.. Inertnnzuaty
a"lull
aien
u.un.} rm
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A' Map 8 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
0 0.25 05
1.5
-Miles
ogober3. 2011
.HA..
A.H.
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' 1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 9 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
0 Das 1 1.5
Miles
October 3,2011
tee,.22ra>"9�
T. 15 R. 09
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
.,_..i Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 10 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
o 025 0.s
Oao0er 0, 2011
1 1.s
Miles
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' a Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 11 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 05 1 1.5
Miles
October 3, 2011
C.---laram..mkaimara.awymry nm age.
MIMI
� � 3u11u iiD�i�1. r=
� ! !IlllliikeJt!iri/t
ill
MIMED
;45 ill —
MIMIJaL
In
li uI�Ii IIIIIIuwrJi
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 12 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 15
Miles
October 3,2011
Legend
State Highway
1---1 Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 13 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
Odober 3, 2011
lir
7j
r
i
05
r
04
r
03
02
1
01
I
I',
/
8 07
I
09
I
09
10
11
12
16
17
7 ai"
15
14
o
73
19
20
T.16R.13
21
22
23
24
/
30
Morrill Rd
�-^x-28. -
�,,� ��„
Morrill Rd
,
i
29-...
-.
2]—""— y
^---'26'-oa"
° �e
25
31
32
33
34
35
36
cis
Legend
State Highway
1---1 Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 13 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
Odober 3, 2011
11/11/1111
- � 11111;19-11141111
111 �.
HI1
1111_pu
1 IH�e�11111��,1
Legend
rne State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r Section Line
' as, Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 14 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 025 051 1.5
Miles
October 3, 2011
ernnansorpanowsosuyitiwapai
.......In.0 ■
RIIIIIII.nrn 11111111110111
.....H.u.....tow mmmmm .0
.u.n.n. n...
...J'......asissontimmin i
Et our
.oq.�N
•� .1'11'•/ ■
so am Pim*
.!. . =..
��Mi®� T 17
I
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1 Exhibit "A" Map Index
EE Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 15 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
0 0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Miles
Otlober3. 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 16 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VLA
0 025 0.5 1
odober3, 2011
13
Miles
Hoo...ec tacit wry mars
xr-nccquAmaonnmay'nma rnLeen+geTletitmll mxo�vem
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 17 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
o 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
0001)50. 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 18 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
Unincorporated Community U 0.25 0.5 ss
r:. Urban Growth Boundary
October 3,2011
Legend
ete State Highway
1 Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 19 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 025 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
000ber3,2011
Itrall.1111111,1111111S11
jihjerrint
-.=.
,,,...
sikkally II
II
Mt
��►►Ell
Ind 11::1/1l�G1�11a
Mi '1104 IV* 111 10 Mr
U 11 tit
111.
i in
in��R
awn
Ea MN= 11111
NM 110MI =DM n-- + EmarilIMIS
o=majk no 44
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r i Section Line
.0 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
-rte Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 20 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
o 025 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
October 3,2011
oscuaw
Legend
r State Highway
I Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
' Exhibit "A" Map Index
OM Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 21 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 025 0.5
1 1.5
'toles
October 3. 2011
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
11 Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 22 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
0 025 0.5 1 1.5
Milw
October 0.2011
4. --
sift;
VI d'Airgid
- 7
jril)nnmm1mnnn-naaa
,t4 IonwuanoIrnar �Y
itt�=mionmu muW-ru
inramminimisj mon 11HI M ml
mimmnnatin- iTM tnuuna= �1
Inial aNNOH0C1a110Hnrna0113 f11t1111
Jmi Hnu InORunrran 1111011 s. moot
s l Ilnl0H_IIlflnittm 1 1Wff fp
.C: 77:1 i" “Ith n mmtt A
3
H4xn HrtBmmei4Y llnl lmnii %�
p 0pnitt�*ryttIiitltllttryq 1 Eln0H
• 11/101141 "Oiitlanjlinn unitnuiunj nu nignL.
NHIm11rn n'"e dn u uu11111i
hnonn minim° 001013 H(
eamlfll Ifl 4111111-'_ f �
Mb. nll it MI trI'Ii-9
rola nm�;q
� y/
nn 1341
IP:—W---21—,0ry ////I
mullnn /
R'tl :no"diun fie )1!
i q dao Gnin Heu r CNA'
u
■ ui� unuPe 1,n i'�� �1HW
m j W k
_ iY 'moifreslam
Si 0,05M
tX
4.Wn
//nn alb■
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
-'T Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 23 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
Miles
October3, 2011
IN0100t -1Ifllfllla1P101Or
nnnrel,xhmw.x.%
'iunIfl,m nnn.�
110011- itlit :l
IUM n�
MINIUM hill illy
so
IIIItlitp111iiiii..0
i! __1J0
nligitt
trCer
Ike
ea. 1ST
=cc
sib
tar
ritwar4.
Legend
State Highway
FM Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
1 Exhibit "A"Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 24 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0s5 0.5 1 vs
Miles
October 3,2011
05 04
Oa oa
17 16
20 21
Legend
a' State Highway
[i Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I ..r Exhibit"A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
_. tM Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 25 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
V V
o ass o.5 1
=Miles
oeober3,2011
Wirrilll
Wfli
tor_
:-MUIY-_ E=li 1:11111111 mummy i
MIIhhE:1.:111E.in1- • gni
%jMMnhy n111n1''A -
/'111 1=rfilpiE nlil'ere-4_-
rm
nil®IlMilll {' 1i1 IIME , Z'4(ii
Mitt
limiEgli
mmit
--_ --
1.
v1�nM 1 n 1n'! nMt/11tty 1M n in 1 rm to
M -A 11 1 i 7::IMIn MIMM.� 2�
[� UMl l' _: MIA:
IL
InM UM ' Mn 11571 11 1111"' II/Ilf UM
1_nruulllllln-Illlllll In LIInii tllnll
11IIMI IMMn.inj IIIuul 1111111
1M 11111 111I1y 11 1 i'1 tllitllMUM 1 11
1
Mina 1 hI MIUMM num MI 101
Ll mina
=--P-s�111e���- papC , 1 eAiIMiO�.1..itai�-�
--
1�1fl� T 21 R.10 iy•1 M
11• 14111ra cramKen
Gast .,10S
arCli
Mir ttgalb
tou
It
�. q IF
JI U1 111iUhIIit
n
IDfi—�?el
11M1116nilIglnlflIff
MMPon--•�
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
WNW
j Exhibit "A" Map Index
IM Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 26 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 0.5
11-5
Miles
gfober3.2011
tuna antep.rvmspalabig
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
( Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
" Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 27 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
0 0.25 0.5
15
--� Miles
October 3,2011
Klamath County
Legend
State Highway
F i Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
r Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
_ 34 Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 28 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
VV
0 0.25 0.5 1
1.5
Oaober 3, 2011
Miles
__. _._. _ _. -mow..
rw
IlMIil i ry!>-.p�
innl i Th::111 1■
11 In"mr
Hi
I'1I"i U�YH-IIH
•ranHIH/1111
.an � t'bi`H—
;fqN�l.HWHIP)�I�tII NINI �/a11m�1II HHHI i1nimum�111�1 1-11111aa•Y•Yntli i silMuInnin: .
nHnu�.lIem �wnnia.
. nii°ial:tai�
m H1I:
�itiii in emnm
-amnn il/�ll�. ...
Legend
State Highway
Tax Lot Boundary
r 1 Section Line
I Exhibit "A" Map Index
Destination Resort Eligible Area
Unincorporated Community
Urban Growth Boundary
Deschutes County
Zoning Map
Exhibit "A" Map 29 of 29
to Ordinance 2011-002
0 0.25 0.5
VV
1 1.5
Miles
October 3. 2011