The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDest Resort Overlay Ordinance 001--._------------ OJ .. . ..• :t tIJ ...\ Q1..~........'f.i.oS .. - ...........u.D Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of November 21, 2011 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: October 31, 2011. FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department 385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deliberation and consideration of Second 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: Second 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 * ORDINANCE NO. 2011-001 Deschutes County Destination Resort Map. * 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 20 I 0-024, 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 19, 20 II 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". II/ PAGE I OF 2 -ORDINANCE NO. 2011-001 Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings and conditions of approval Exhibit "B," which includes Attachment 1, which is a series of parcel based maps, showing grand fathered properties retaining a destination resort designation, attached and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --------------~ OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice-Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER Commissioner Date of 151 Reading: ___ day of _____-', 2011. Date of 2nd Reading: ___ day of ______, 2011. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Alan Unger Effective date: ___ day of ______, 2011. PAGE 2 OF 2 -ORDINANCE NO. 2011-001 3 4 1 10 I 1-- 1 1 17 L __ Telherow - -...1 Pronghom 13 --.,..--- 15 14 20 21 -- Calderal Springs 23 ...r - 1 1 27 26 25 1 1 I I r----T---- -.. I I I I 28 I I City of La Pine Deschutes County Legend Comprehensive Plan Map N State Highway Exhibit nAn Index Map I :.. Exhibit "A" Map Index to Ordinance 2011-001 r.... .._ ......____.....,_...~~G,$c:J County Boundary = c-_.IlIot>o....._"'....... 1UI.~...... ~eo...ty ""-__..~... _..",....~~~...."IJIIIIIl1li Unincorporated Community ........,"'~/1f ....".. __~~_..-... ..."' ..~-.. ,,",,"-...---..,...,,--~.. __d..., ............--.:t o u ___~'~","Ill' ...(')II8)2O.1Q)t~~11)XrtUrban Growth Boundary !""! ! Miles October 3. 2011 I I 02 01 Jefferson County 06 03 I I -+---~--- 07 08 I J -+- I 18 16 I 14 I 19 20 22 ----1---.-----1-- 30 32 28 34 26 I I I 12 13 24 25 Legend Deschutes County N State Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax Lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 1 of 29 '~,'{~.•r ...J Section Une to Ordinance 2011-001 DSQ,.,Io,,"EfiThfItot:I_............ __"'"__~_""~~G'a I ::.Exhibit "A" Map Index c-_."'~"..~01 .... _ .."'._...... ~QoooOIIIr ..-flC:nlPt..",~""--.",.-...~.....4IFI'_"'... 1"tItot ___~_ 1..~0I~~'" ~"'...~.._fl;lr.,,-_~_~ _ Destination Resort Eligible Area ® .-....~"'...,-........ ""~~11UI'_~"JIf1I~_1_Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary OcIobe,3,2011 12 Jefferson County 05 Legend N State Highway Tax lot Boundary r 1 Section line I ; r"""""~... __....,."''''......-........_ ...''''-C/lootI!rlI(I,.$ ..., Exhibit "A" Map Index c.. ...*..................fIf... _....:._~....oI' ~~CII_-.""""''4.......''''..._~IJ~~....~ ~."...~_nrr...._I10_"'"""'...-• ....-.-.., .. _ Destination Resort Eligible Area ........"'~O'II:_IaJII~JUpIIaf.~...-a _.......-d'*"'...........~ ...\~~"at)1..~,,_(IIl1_......z_Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary 04 03 I 08 09 10 I I --- 16 17 ----~--------~~~ 19 20 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 2 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 1!!!!"!1!!!5iiiil!!!!5iiiii1!!!!!!!!!!!~__iiiiiiiiiiiil!Miles 02 13 __ Jefferson County Legend N State Highway Tax lot Boundary r ..J Section line I :,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 o..!!!Ii~0i!.25!!siiiol·5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil.5r""1 j Miles October 3, 2011 TI:w..-,""'-....__""ItI. ___","""""",_",,~~G'$ c-...s_........._"'"._"N'lI.-""'........ -..c....., ~...,._~iI><..,.",..._OI_~.. "'.. ...."',"'*~_ n...-._ ... _ ..... .".....l'flOllolfllllll.~" __...~II/I .....kI',,""....""jjIW;~..JlI'IIIU:l ,"""-t_"'",,,.~"''''''' 1j'''''-~~~\~!_.~1'f_0!)\_~_ Jefferson County Legend ~ State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r ..J Section Line I :..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 (fl) Cl-SC\.AlloIet Tht ..__....... _---....dI-"CI\~~GI$ c...... _"... _ ...... _"a. ..._ ..... ~~ ""....... ~~~..._ .............--......---.... N~ **..,....~Irifil-n......OIo:I-.tItH,crp..o ........ "'"""*"GI ... -....,..._.........,at1ll'_••~I!OIPI'M:,--.... ~ '-t._......._ ......~ /If\~~I'1!1l.~~I1_«n_...._ Jefferson County 01 12 1a Deschutes County Legend N State Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax Lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 5 of 29 r ...J Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 ".. __... II'I"_....,.....,_OO-I __..... ~~OI!i """C\rtto_-.,fI... ~d.... _ ....."'..-.... ~~I ::,Exhibit "AU Map Index ..__ ~...,.~IO<_-.s..~~............"'.... ~-"'-.......~...-............ -...,,.,...............I11_""..._ ........ ~_JIIIIIIW. _~d __....---. _ Destination Resort Eligible Area ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5Unincorporated Community !,......!5~!!!!ri=iiiiiI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5;;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil' Mites Urban Growth Boundary Odot>er3,2011 02 01 ~~~~~."",---------~,---------- 22 27 33 34 11 12 Ander Ave 13 24 25 35 0 (3 0 .... 0 0c: ::I -< Legend N Slate Highway Tax Lot Boundary r ..J Section Line I -:. 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 eN o 0.25 0.5 t.5 ....-,i!sa!--S.;!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia·Miles Odober3,2011 Tht_."....____~I-""~c....,.at6""'""...,...........,~ 0'~.-,M_4Iif'II c...__..""_........-.DI....___ ........,-..... ~0l000t0!tI' _"...~_11011N ......_~........ -...."' ~d~"'........._~~_~ _f_DlIIfIJ'._.... ""'--'" Legend N'State Highway Tax lot Boundary r ...J Section line I :..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 ® OcIobO, 3, 2011 1'l$Cl,."..ERr.. ....--...""...____....I_""~~G.'s CIn""'••_ ....._ .._ ..... IU ••~...,. o-c-.~--...,.........,... -~.~~......... ..6*'.. ___ nw.._no... ..~ _~_.~~_..,<It.......-,"" ......... ...-,.....~_-.r:t -,.........""'........"*~ N\~~1'jIlO'~~."J)Ot__l_ " '" 13 ----t-----...1___ 22 24 Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r -.J section Line I :..Exhibit "A" Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 8 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o O~5 0.5 1.5 !e!!!lii;iZ-!!!Iii~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'Mi,es CiCtOber 3, 2011 CllU:J.AIioI('RT.. _"".......... \tI."""'___ o,IIgat......9'<Ot_C~G,$ c.....'II_... _f!W_d ....... ""-... ~..... ~c......, Q.,..,.~...,~......... -"'~~"'..~ _or_~._r __"'lI_'_"'..-....,.,....""--..,~........--,..-"".~~........,.....~ .............".~...........- .. \~_~alm:rH_~lIIl1wOOl_......... Legend .N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r 1 Section Line -" Exhibit "A" Map Index I -_ Destination Resort Eligible Area Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 9 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o.!5~O~'2!5~;O.!5~~~!5......~15,........ ;;;; ? Miles T"* __.... _""'P ___..1_j)j'\o..:rw....CoI.I...".GIS,""".~cw.._--. .....__<lf_~IMI[.. ,..........,..... c.r-.~ Q_IIII1QIIIII!..,~"'_._f,tf........ -.,....... -"'...-..~,.........-~*.............,....,. ~"'---."'_1W•....-~..............~ -~",,,,,.-,,,,,,.~ tot1.~~ld)I_~n,.ool_~ 00 05 I 07 oa 09 10 11 12 t--------t--------4---------+-.------~------~~------~~ I 18 17 16 14 '___",,!3--'~...___15 , __I ---;-----4----T:-15·R:·09----1.....,----~---_-I-J i I 19 ~-- t 1 30 1---, 20 I 29 - 21 I I22 I -- 28 27 _L~ I ~_l 33 34 .. ""~-.- 23 - 26 35 --- 24 -......--- 25 Legend -N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r ..J Section Line I :..Exhibit "An Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 10 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 eN o 025 0,5 1.5 l!e!siiii!!!!liiiiiiiMIiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilJ'Miles October 3, 2011 TM"""""_...,.... __'*"'KI_~·_.. ~G~GIS""""c.._.............-."'..._w... ~...... ~~ -1itt!IIpO""'~...,-....-..Qf~-.,......... .."'...~_T_...... _ ..~·....... -*'II.. ....otr"'__·_rtw ...-,.....~-..-. _-':-d""_M"'~ ,,\~ .. fI... _ ~'CJIOW"OO'w~".J'IO'l~....., Legend N 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 11 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 _ 'MilesO~~O.2~5~~O~.5~!!~!5,....., ......~I..5 Odober3.2011 ata."'I11~ThJ ...._"'fi"" ......., ___(llgQ!,._Cft~~<)IS C-_..lllrn,. ............ of'""...Jl. .....~......r o.:-.~ Q ...... ~... ~I1I<__"'~~"... __ _ ... .,.~t'IIW<Il "'-.....""'_..""""'O'~-...... _nI1<J1..,....,..,.,CO_!O.~__ ~..~ ...... , __01...,.',.... .."' •..- N\~ll(l1!_~III"_\1II1__"_ I I I Deschutes County Legend Comprehensive Plan Map N State Highway Tax lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 12 of 29 r .-J SectiOn line to Ordinance 2011-001 _..- Ttoo ....__" .... ~_d__\lllW_....r._eo.oI'ly"tG,Sc..._""_....._lIl!Y>oI.....I> ...... ~·.".· -~ ® "'rnoI_I"'___~.,.__ .. -....~~-.I -::, Exhibit "A" Map Index ~"'..~...... r_.... ""_..."..................... __""__...._.~d-_"'...,..--,.",_011 .....""""""~.~..~ _ Destination Resort Eligible Area 1I'~~:lIl"(I)l_$tnt.~tI_I)(j,_....O::! Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary ()QoIler 3.2011 __ 01 08 09 17 15 14 13 19 20 21 23 24 --___ __-h______________~--- --1'---!.-'f----·------+-----t----...,,~__J. I I-rl- ---L---"(---~------.--t-.---}L-I-r---.---iI 31 I 32 33 34 / / / / Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r 1 Section Line ;;;;;I .." Exhibit "A" Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area .. Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 13 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 eft) o 0.25 0.5 1.5 t'! 'Miles Odober3, 20" Thoo ..._""'''''''oNp_~_..,_<;lO.~C'O''''''''"cISC-.... II_.....".....<If__P.UIl.. ~...... ~""'"'" ""'...!YG1o:QIpI.,,~""_-..0!~~"""' o;oM• .,,"'...-..........-n.._......._.~.~IIId.IWV... ___""01~."_"".___~~... _ _ ....-.-01• .,,_..........,..,...,. "'\~~lIll'l(OI_~;I)tl_If»!_"'""tl_ --- 05 Crook County 03 01 ---r--~----+---- Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r ..J Section Line I -::. Exhibit "A" Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area _ Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 14 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 o 0.25 0.5 1.5 ,........ -Miles October 3,2011 TM_.",... I11.""", ___!lpI_... ~C~GI$Qn'"'"_......,.._...__IlQ.C~.. .....~ ~c-w, ---~....--.. ~-"........ -"'-~-~....... -........ -fjt-~.... ~...~..-,...".-....... ~-~ ---...--.....~ 04 I I 01 ~-.----1---+-.....J--t....J~~---+------,~-----l~---1-- 07 11 I I 12 ...,..,.+------1---'--"--1--i-------·-~ 15 14 I I 13 24 ~-----4-----1--- r.:-.::J=t:j 125 35 ,j,\\";;~~~""'''~~'''''''',, Deschutes County Legend N Slate Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 15 of 29 r 1 Section line to Ordinance 2011-001 :::""""".~ ___n...-M~,..._"""' ""'""*_OI'~C~G,S ® CaH_.....___atr._IroI ... _ .... ~~~I .." Exhibit "A" Map Index ..,,~... -""'-""~~.........,..."''''_~'''II'-"""'-. "'-___...... __•.....-,"'"""""IN _ ........d~.. __...,....a.a ~.~«-.-""'...--~.... ~ _ Destination Resort Eligible Area ..... ~.... olI ... QII:lZlI'OOI_~l1J1O'1_~_o 0,25 0,5 1,5 _ Unincorporated Community t""'1 'Miles Urban Growth Boundary Odober 3, 2011 Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r 1 Section Line I :,Exhibit nAn 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 ® Od_,3, 2011 fA·..'~. ~-..n._""1I''''1I'1IP...___~_... o.-C~GIS c..._••"'n""""~i'II_Qr_....,,~~.. ~-..... ~Coo.orIfra,.,..,.",...............-,...."""' __«~~.... ~ :':=~.!:':.:::.."!..==--=-""'=~ _'~d ..... _ .... IMI.-.._ 07 17 ---------~I--------------~--------~ 19 20 ---------r.---------~~~---+----~-4.---~----4 30 31 f f Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r ...J Section Line I -:. Exhibit "A" Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area II1II Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 17 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 o 0.25 0.5 1.5 P"""1 'Miles OcIobe, 3, 2011 I'I'II_""II'IOI"IIP ___~-.""...,....~G'. """"''" Qn","._.. IN~"_"''''_I'.IU ••,.-'''1Ir ~~ ............--.....,"'"--"'~""'-'I"...... ..."""",-",",,,_ "'-_... _••_....-fJt~~... __o$• ..,........... M ___ ~"'~.-,.",....fIu'pl/I!I~... ftI\~••",......'..c..:rain...'_~~nJlO"l~-"_ -- I , 08 I 09 , 10 , I---+-- 18 19 I I 17 20 I , 16 15 , +---T-18,.R.-1~.- I I I 21 I I 11 Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r -.J Section Line I ::.. Exhibit "A" Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Corr~prehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 18 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o O.~5 0.5 1.S I!e"'!S;;;!!5ii1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil'Miles """'~~ T"t...,_~",,,,.,,,,,,__..... !tIgIIoI_()I'\~C~GI' <:.-."'""'.........."'._.......... Id~ .. ~.... ~eo...,Q_-.opl... ~,.,WIft_.~~..... dIOCII __••"'J ___~ -...... "'-_..._--",----...",~-__--.,..,_~(If ,...~_,---.,_pt'I\IIIMt i't\~~.!«I._~1O.1_00l~_.. _ Legend -N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r , Section Line I -:, 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 o 0.25 0.5 1.5 1!P"""""I5iii1-!!!!!Iiiiii1!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Miles Odober 3. 2011 !)5Q.,o,,,,mne"""_-.tlIII"'''''''''__......,,,.,_..~c.....,,.GI!iI ~ __ a..c~ ..~...J...,.....c,,_.""' .... c-.~ ........:_l"!"---.tio_ -...... ~_fI'I ...__ _"'...~_"'-_.........rttn, • .-"''''''''''''''''--".,.. _I'ti'd~",__""""''''~~_~-'............."'...,-...~ M,~:II')tlOl)'_~J'I"_OOI __._ Legend N State Highway Tax lot Boundary r , Section line I -:. Exhibil"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 ® Odobet 3, 2011 l"\\oo~"'''.''''' lJCIa'dIo_..~eo...rtrwGle ""'-~ ____ c.,...,_.....<:t4_tJl.._I!\I.is~..W/f' ~~ .,..,....-~• .., .......-,...,--........~......dQiIII_Of ... __ r............ ~ ~~.....a.~_ ......""I:I-.....,.---•••-,..........~.... ~ _"'--d""'_.IDI'~"-' ,.\ ...~~r'lMI_~lO''1_rJtn~_ -- ___ 04 I 03 I 10 I ~ I - 18 1 117 15 1 1 +-1 --..14 ___I 19 I 20 21 22 I I I--+----,----4-____I 1 I I I I· • i · I ~ I I 1I ~ 1 ~ I 02 01 O--~r-~--~~------~-----4_____-J 11 " I---~-- I 14 I 13 1_ L---I - 23 1 I r---- I 24 · I • I---~I---~----L 1 - 35 Deschutes County Legend Comprehensive Plan Map N'State Highway Tax Lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 21 of 29 r ...J Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 ;"~"'''''''' dIJIbI_...a.--.~ajSI :..Exhibit "A" Map Index CMi_.....1!lN.......... <Jf"._IU ••~.... ~~ --•.,.---~""--.....-..-,(>........ ......,lIII~Ilf ~ """..-:t-.....~--.....,..jII....."_______.......... ~......... ".".,..._ Destination Resort Eligible Area ® ~""'**'*"..... -...- ot\~.. WI !JII);!I.,(I)l_~!1...,DG'1~~_Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary October 3.2011 05 03 ------~~.------~~~~ 07 08 1B 15 I I 02 01 11 12 ----1------1!1---i 14 13 - --+.---------i~-_Ii_: ~ T:-19 R:-11r """:-1 -- I 23 19 24 30 27 26 35 25 36 Deschutes County Legend N State Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 22 of 29 r ...J Section line to Ordinance 2011-001 I:150.AIIoIEI'tT"".-Ir>n\1l'O ..____ __<:fI>OI...~ f"l.~G!SI :.,Exhibit "A" Map Index c..."".!II.." ....~.,,__ I>l... p-.f..... o.e-c.o...,"*_fIttIIIPI; ... ... <;lI ........ ~__ ~"'e.~ _ .. n.._.w--.. __..~,.....e.,..~_ _ Destination Resort Eligible Area ~!II ....~... -,...,.-"........,...-..pt..,...- _......-d__.........-.:t® on~~f'Cej_~"SXl._.".rJ ....Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary October 3, 2011 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 ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 i!P"""!!!!!Iii~!!!Iiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!___iiiiiiiii Miles October 3, 2011 DSQ.AIIIEFIn.._n""......____OCI.._OIIOHcI'I...C......G,5 c.._I .....n ....~"'.._p,tuc.~.... c-_c...... co..... _ • ..,..--..... -._.. ~.,..,...,.... _or"","*""", __ TMM ... "" __._................. --"<11~......"".a-......._~...--.a. -...--"'..., ..........--~ ..CIIIO:;m"CD'_~20f1_00!_-.ll_ --- __ 32 02 01 -+-,1------1--__ J 10 I 11 12 I---+- r 16 15 I 14 r r I T:-2 R7"""1-1 21 22 28 27 , I___ 33 34 ---+-- I 23 24I I I I 26 25JI ___ I I 35 36 Deschutes County Legend N State Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax Lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 24 of 29 r .-J Section line to Ordinance 2011-001 DISCL"lIIIfA ""'~(II'I"'"" !Oqrn~____ I>I>~,,,",C~':"$ ® QIoI ..,_...._ ...__ .......IlWltit~ r-:-.~I -:. Exhibit "A" Map Index .._ .........~"'...... -.ar.........a:&IH'J ....dIgII! _ .....~_"-t.......n,...,_Qf""'Jlllloll.~.. ~"'~/I# __~...~....kr.po _~otr...__"".____ Destination Resort Eligible Area k\~ •• • ...1OIIO»nllll_~lID1'___~_o 0.25 0,5 1.5 _ Unincorporated Community ,..., Miles Urban Growth Boundary October 3,2011 I 05 I 04 1 II ,03 I 02 01 -t---~---r----~-- I 08 I ~ I 10 I 11 II , I I ~---I I ---1----i-- tj 17 I 16 I 15 I 14 1 12 13 .. I I I I I • .........,'---11' ~-1-1 - - --1---T:'21-R:-11- -r--------+--------J I I I, , I ~ I 21 22 23 24 I --1-----t-----I-.-.--~--- I 32 II 27 I 26 I 25 -~---~--- 33 34 I I 35 36 Deschutes County Legend Comprehensive Plan Map -N State Highway ..•.. ~ ..,Tax Lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 25 of 29 7•r .J Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 .".,...'", .... _OI\IIM ___*,.,~.....I_... ~.~Gl$ r::.._I;I"'''VW__lII __N ••p.-''''' ~~I :.Exhibit "A" Map Index ........ ..--...,~..--"'~--......,.._ ...... ~_~_f\O_..,............... -.... -"""'«_"'~111-"."""-~~-~_'_fII'...__.~® _ Destination Resort Eligible Area "'\~ :lit:A 1'1 'f'"":ID'!'ah_~_-_~-o 0.2; 0.; 1.5 _ Unincorporated Community ,......, 'Mites oetobe,3,2011Urban Growth Boundary 18 17 I ---J- I 19 I 20 Legend N State Highway Tax lot Boundary r ...J Section line I -:. Exhibit "A" Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area Unincorporated Commu nily Urban Growth Boundary Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 26 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 o 0,25 0,5 1 5 1!!!P""""1!!1iiiiil!!!!!Iiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil'Miles oaobe,3,2011 T"'_,,<I*',..."'.. ___tIiUIItO*lIIIw-...... ~C""'ItfIIlI$ """"'""c..ftb_ ..NC____ t>oI ••..-..... rfI' ~~a...ot-.""' __.....__ .....,.". """-"<It"'~_ ~_... _ ..... ....-•.....",...«"'*V"" ......""~........---~- --«""'._.._--- .~-r JIt\ ~• M til. CI'I:IZ!<101)ltntlflP••'...'_.ZC2U·UIO'1_...._ --- __ -- , 03 07 16 19 30 31 Legend N State Highway Tax Lot Boundary r ~Section Line I :.Exhibit ''A'' Map Index _ Destination Resort Eligible Area Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary 05 04 03 J , 02 I --_..1--_.1-.__ I I 11 12 I I_ 08 17 29 32 09 16 21 26 33 15 22 I I 14 --+I I 26 I ----I I I 35 I I n._~lIl>n'"'tt.""",...___ ""'-'" c.. ... tlloMI .. O''<_..,_'''''!'J,M~.~...... o..:-Co!.IOIr _... _~-..... ~."M_.__/l"''''''-''''-~."'I'~""-'-'"'------"-""-..,.._"....-.01 ....1$f.,.,..,..~~_~_'__oIl"I'_"'IIot.~ N\~~»l'IXlI~~3iI1~OOI_-.;n_ 24 25 36 digttl_.... ~CIIuo'II(tGI$ Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit "A" Map 27 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0<25 0<5 U 1!!""!!!5iiiil!!!IiiiZ!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'Miles O<:Iober 3, 2011 ,--, ·_··--·-03---··· ·······..·-02 --J I --I-----I----l----..,I--"""'\ 13---;---1 ~ ----..r---. Klamath County Deschutes County Legend N State Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 28 of 29 r ..J Section line to Ordinance 2011-001 1'.)I$:;;t."*~n. ...__n ....... ____ ... __ ~ <I~_.Qt ~(),.I -:. Exhibit "A" Map Index c...._~_.....""*"'''' ...... ,.IM ....._. .... 0I0I0¢fI0,M~ ..--....,~""......... _II",.._,.,-r._if9IOIII _ n.-...'I!>-.._«......_~_ ~.. -....,,_~..../I:ir ••_,.,.....~.......... _ Destination Resort Eligible Area -.~"'---.~ It\f'fto(lI!(l_ lOt_ " "CIII():Il"OO1.~"J»I~"""_o 0.25 0.5 1.5Unincorporated Community ~F!!liiiiil!!!!liiiiiZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_! Miles Urban Growth Boundary Odober 3,2011 __ 20 [--32 ..] 33 I , 24I ~II_~--- I , 25 Klamath County Legend Deschutes County N State Highway Comprehensive Plan Map Tax lot Boundary Exhibit "A" Map 29 of 29 r ...J Section line to Ordinance 2011-001 =_mn. __"''''!1'111111 ___''-'!_... _~GISI -:.. Exhibit "N Map Index cw ..."...", ..,.~..... ~tg._~·." _Ck'Wf..-.........,...,.,.,...,..""'--.~--..""...-",-..,..;yrIQ--.......-..,...,_............._ Destination Resort Eligible Area ----..-~.,.--...."'I'fIQM_~..._-....<If,l~_,...® HI.~~Xlll00!_s.~XlnJlOl __..m:_o 0.25 0.5 1.5Unincorporated Community 1!!ff!!!Ii~!!Iiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil! Miles Urban Growth Boundary oaober 3. 2011 FINDINGS PUANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Deschutes County Planning Commission on January 27,2011 recommended the following a~endments 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. J1 Tre 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 Iryitiated by Deschutes County, the following plan amendment and zone changes are e,ncompassed in Ordinances 2011-001 and 2011-002 respectively, and collectively amend DCC liitles 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). 1jhe two maps show where destination resorts can be located in Deschutes County. The map qepicted in Ordinance 2011-001 is officially an element of the Comprehensive Plan, while the qne 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). 1 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 BA¢KGROUND Exirting Destination Resort Map A destination resort chapter was added to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan in 1992 at the request of Eagle Crest Resort? 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 suplplemented the state's criteria by excluding large agricultural and forest parcels, and resource lan~s 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 Sta,tewide 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 I 114,448 acres. New Ordinances Th~ Board of County Commissioners (Board) on July 28, 2010 adopted by emergency Or<ilinances 2010-024 and 2010-025. These two ordinances, recently affirmed by the Land Use I Bo~rd of Appeals and the Oregon Court of Appeals, establish criteria and a legislative process Defchutes County can follow to change its destination resort maps .4 Ordinance 2010-024 as sUlillmarized in Table 1, modifies DCC Chapter 23 .84, Destination Resort Goals and Policies by listing areas that are eligible and ineligible for destination resorts.s Table 1 -Ordinance 2010-0241 Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria I To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide Planning Goals, destination resorts shall pursuant to Goal 8 not be sited in Deschutes County in the following areas: Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land within a High Value Crop Area - On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an approved Goal exception On areas protected as GoalS resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan where all Ine1igibile Areas conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the GoalS resource Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 and as further refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement: Tumalo deer winter range Portion of the Metolius deer winter range Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican Sites less than 160 acres 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. 4 The Land Use Board of Appeals, LUBA No , 2010-075 and 2010-076 affirmed the County's decision. s http://www.co.deschutes .or.us/dccodeltitle23/docs/chapter%2023,84.doc Page 2 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 Table 1 -Ordinance 2010-0241 Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Areas of Critical State Concern Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources , shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect: Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican Elk Habitat Area Deer Winter Range;......__ Wildlife Priority Area , identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South County Regional Ineligibile Areas Problem Solving Group (continued) Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1) Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous acres in irrigation Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries Lands deSignated Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145 Platted subdivisions For those lands not located in any of the areas deSignated above, destination resorts may, pursuant to Goal 8, Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County zoning code, be sited in the following areas: Forest Use 2 F-2) , Multip'le Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR-1 0) zones Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres Eligibile Areas All property within a subd ivision 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 Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships Oridinance 2010-025 as shown in Table 2, specifies Destination Resort Map Amendment P~ocedures cited in DCC 22.23 by describing the process for handling map amendment a~plications.6 Table 2 -Ordinance 2010·0251 Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than once every 30 months The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be the first Tuesday in September by 5::00 p.m. Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply will remain on the eligibility map if property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday in January at 5:00 p.m. to remain eligible In addition to any other county code provision regarding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the next 30-month deriod for amendments to the eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish a notice announcing opportunities for property owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility map Property owners must file applications for an eligibility map amendment prior to the last day of the 30-month period by 5:00 p.m. Any additional applications filed after the deadline in DCC 22.23 .01 O(C) will be processed at the end of the next 3D-month cycle 6 http://www.co .deschutes.or.us/dccode/titie22/docs/chapter%2022.23.doc Page 3 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 Table 2 -Ordinance 2010-025 I Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner shall: - Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the property owner as defined ! . . .herein to make the application I ~e completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director $e accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of County Commissioners ':nclude documentation that demonstrates compliance with eligibility criteria For applications adding properties to the eligibility map, the applicant will be required to demonstrate consistency 11 h the Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660-012-0060 The planning director shall retain any applications received prior to the expiration of the 30-month period Mql tiple applications shall be consolidated The planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning commission or hearings officer after the expiration of the 30-month period PROPOSALS Deletions Defchutes 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 sit~ a destination resort and because the underlying property owners did not file a request to ret~in the overlay under DCC 22 .23 .010(C). These properties were originally designated in 19$2 . 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. Th~ City of Bend also requested, voluntarily that the County remove 3 parcels associated with th~ir wastewater treatment plant and 5 affiliated with Juniper Ridge, a master-planned, mixed us'¥ area in NE Bend . This affected area is accounted within the 91,701 acres proposed for removal. Gr~ndfather Clause New destination resort eligibility criteria adopted by the Board last summer, disqualified approximately 30,000 tax lots that were designated originally in 1992.7 However, a second ordinance adopted by the Board provided a process for those disqualified landowners to retain thdir previous mapping designation. Property owners wishing to remain on Deschutes County's De;stination 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 .01 O(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; hUp:llwww.co.deschutes.orus/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 profisions of state law. Attachment 1, which is a series of parcel based maps, shows these "grrndfathered" properties . Nine hundred and eight "grandfather" properties were crossed checked by Geographic Information Systems and shown to contain an original destination resort deJignation. Ad~itions Defchutes County received three requests to add properties to Deschutes County's Destination Re~ort 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) Pin e Fo rest Development, LLC Plan Amendment 10-7 Zone Change 10-5 Sou t h of Sunriver, near Vandevert Road 61 7 201100-00-00103 B~lveron Partners, LLC and Vandevert I 9ijoad, LLC Plan Amendment 10-8 Zone Change 10-6 South of Sunriver, near Vandevert Road 179.5 201100-00-00104 98.68 201100-00-00105 Oregon Department of State Lands I Plan Amendment 10-9 Zone Change 10-6 West of Eagle Crest Resort 400 151200-00-05101 151200-00-05102 151200-00-05103 151200-00-05104 151200-00-05200 151200-00-05300 I Up~ated Destination Resort Map Statistics De Jchutes County is proposing to amend the resort maps as follows: • IRemove 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 I criteria cited in Ordinance 2010-024. • Maintain 3,187 acres carried over from the existing resort map based on 908 grandfather irequests pursuant to DCC 22 .23.01 O(C); • Add 3 sites, totaling 1,255.17 acres based on map amendment applications.10 Th~ amended destination resort map now identifies 22,002.17 acres, reflecting an 80% reduction from the one presently in place (112,448 acres). 8 Ordinance 2010-025 , DCC 23.23.010(C); http ://www.co .deschutes.or.us/dccode/title22/docs/chapter%2022.23 .doc 9 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 Twp ordinances, Ordinance No . 2010-024 and 2010-025 were adopted by the County last year . Orqinance 2010-024 establishes new destination resort mapping criteria, and Ordinance 2010 025, the map amendment procedures. Both ordinances provide the basis for reviewing the leg 1slative plan and zone change map amendments and justifying that they are consistent with the I Comprehensive Plan. Findings are also made demonstrating consistency with statewide planning goals and relevant statutory law. FINDINGS 1. Destination Resorts I 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 lar~e resort developments preceded the statewide land use planning system, including Black Butte, Sunriver, and Inn of 7th MountainlWidgi Creek . In 1981, Governor Atiyeh's Task Force on La1d Use Planning recommended that destination resorts be allowed as an economic dev1elopment 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.11 2. Oregon Revised Statutes I 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 am~ndments to their destination resort maps, not more frequently than once every thirty (30) mOlilths .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).13 3. Deschutes County Map Amendment Procedures Th~ Board on July 28, 2010 adopted Ordinance 2010-025, DCC 22 .23, Destination Resort Map Am~ndment 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 t~e 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.leg .state.or.us/ors/197 .html 13 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 .14 Th$ four map amendment requests that remove and add lands to the destination resort maps cit~d 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 Th $ 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 ma p amendment requests that remove and add lands to the destination resort maps cited in DC ;C Titles 23 and 18, are evaluated below. With the exception of one ineligible tax lot (151200 00-b51 01) owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands, they all comply with Deschutes Co ~nty'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 sit~s. These properties were originally designated on the resort map in 1992 . The County's new elig'ibility 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 accbunted within the 91 ,701 acres proposed for removal. 6. Grandfather Request Unqer state law, destination resorts can only be sited in areas designated on a county des~ination 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 dounty criteria, it was automatically designated on Deschutes County 's Comprehensive Plan an~ Destination Resort Overlay Zone Maps beginning in 1992. Those two maps designate 112:,448 acres as eligible for resort development. Ne'-Y 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 Otdinance 2010-024, DCC 23 .84.030; http://www.co.deschutes .or.us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%202384.doc Page 7 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ord inance 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 seri f s of parcel based maps, shows these "grandfathered" properties. Nine hundred and eight "grandfather" properties were crossed checked by Geographic Information Systems and shown to ,*,ntain an original destination resort designation. Beoause Deschutes County is amending the Destination Resort Map, rather than adopting an enti~ely new map, the County was not required to evaluate each parcel retained on the map to det~rmine whether each such grandfathered parcel met current standards. When the County ad dpted 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 h:ave their properties retained on the resort map pursuant to DCC 22.23.01 O(C), the County is not required to consider whether these properties comply with the current County mapping I starndards 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 201b-076, March 10,2011 (Slip Op . 24). 7. Transportation Planning Rule for Lands Removed from Resort Map an~ Overlay Zoning The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires local governments to determine whether an am$ndment to a comprehensive plan will "significantly affect" an existing or planned trarisportation facility. The TPR identifies three ways in which an amendment to a c0'jprehensive plan could "significantly affect" a transportation facility. OAR 660-012-0060(1). Th J present amendment removes 91,701 acres of land from the Destination Resort Overlay Zo~e map. This means that 91,701 acres of land are no longer eligible for resort development. The removal of over 91,000 acres of land eligible for resort development will not add any trips to any: transportation facility. In fact, by removing over 91,000 acres of eligible land , the present am$ndment will greatly reduce the amount of traffic which could be presently generated by rellloving 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 acr$s 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 Th J Oregon Legislature in 2010 enacted SB 1031 and added the following provision to ORS 19 7 .455 : 197.455 . (1) A destination resort may be sited only on lands mapped as eligible for ~estination 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. VandevertlBelveron 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 B to Ordinance 2011-001 Ri~ers 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 VapdevertlBelveron and Pine Forest properties. Thus, each of these properties are currently sulDject to a County-approved wildfire protection plan. In addition, the County will require, as a co~dition to this ordinance, that each of the properties added to the Destination Resort Overlay Zo ~e map not only comply with the Wildfire Plan, but that each be developed consistent with "Fi(eWise" 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. Sinhilarly, Crosswater, a non-Goal 8 resort in close proximity to the Pine Forest, Belveron and va ~devert Road properties, is also a recognized FireWise Community. Both the Caldera and Crqsswater 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 de~eloped 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 bFireWise 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 stardards 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 Plah as the wildfire protection plan required under ORS 197.455(1)(f) for the Belveron, Va~devert and Pine Forest properties. For purposes of the present amendments , the County finqs 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 ov~rall risk of fire. b. DSL Cline Buttes Site Th~ 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 als~ within the same CWPP quadrant area . This CWPP was originally completed and approved in Qecember 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 deJeloped 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 s(.Jbject 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)(f), the Upper Deschutes River Natural Resources Coalition Page 9 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 I 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 Fire Wise 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 ." The remainder of this page intentionally left blank. Page 1 0 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 9. Pine Forest Development LLC Map Amendment Table 4 -Destination Resort Map Eligibility Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Ineligible Areas Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing popJlation of 100,000 On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and map~d by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land within a High Value Crop Area 0 J ! On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 foreJt lands which are not subject to an apprbved Goal exception o I 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 Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as liste~ below, as generally mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in July 1984 and as further refined thro~gh development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement Sites less than 160 acres Areas of Critical State Concern Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect: Findings 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 . Applicant complies . As determined by Ordinance 92-002, Deschutes County does not have unique farm land. This fact remains true today according to NRCS (soil conservation service) State Soil Scientist Chad L. McGrath. The Pine Forest property , also , does not contain prime farm land . The mapped soils on the Pine Forest property are Soil Classes 114C and 115A. Neither is a prime or unique soil. The rest of the soils on the property are unmapped so ils. This site is not within three miles of an adjoining county . It, also , is not within three miles of a high value crop area as shown by findings provided later 1n this document. ._ 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. Applicant complies. This site is not identified with a protected' Deschutes County Goal 5 resource where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource. (Ordinances 92-040, 92-041, 92-042 , 92-046 , 92-056 , 94 007, 94-021 and 2001-019). The WA zone that applies to the Pine Forest property specifically allows destination resort development. 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 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. Applicant complies. This site encompasses 617 acres Applicant complies. This site is not within the Metolius sub-r basin the only area of critical state concern in Deschutes County. Applicant complies The site is not mapped by ODFW as especially sensitive big game habitat, Tumalo Deer Winter Range, Metolius Deer Winter Range, Antelope Winter Range, Wildlife Priority Area or Elk Habitat Area, areas the County has chosen to protect (Ordinances 92-002 and 92 041). Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 Applicant complies. This site is not mapped as a Wildlife ODFW map submitted to the South County Priority Area identified on the 1999 ODFW map . Regional Problem Solving Group Page 11 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 Table 4 -Destination Resort Map Eligibility Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Findings Lands zoned (OS8.C) Open Space and Conservation 0' Lanqs zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1); Irrigc:jted lands zoned Exclusiv~ Farm Use (EF~) having 40 or greater contiguous acres In irrigation 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 Zonel Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries 0' 0' - Applicant complies. The site is not within a mile of a UGB. Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under OR~ 195.145 Platted subdivisions Eligible Areas Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MU."'-10), and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones 0' 0' Applicant complies. The site is not within Redmond's Urban Reserve Area, the only land in Deschutes County that is designated urban reserve under ORS 195.145. _ . Applicant complies . The site is not within a platted subdivision . 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 . Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land 0' Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres 0' Not applicable. 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 priori to 1990, for which the original cluster dev~lopment approval designated at least 50 percent of the development as open space and whiCr was within the destination resort zone prior-to the effective date of Ordinance 2010 024 ~hall remain on the eligibility map 0' Not applicable. The site is not within a cluster development. Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres greater under one or multiple ownerships or 0' Applicant complies. This site encompasses 617 acres. Page 12 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 I Table 5 -Map Amendment Procedures The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be amended as follows: Procedures Findings Applicant complies . Ordinances 2011 -001 and 002All amendments to the eligibility map shall be represent Deschutes County's first amendment to itsprodessed simultaneously and no more than 0" eligibility map since periodic review.16 All amendments asonce every 30 months. noted in these findings are being processed simultaneously. The deadline for applications for the first Applicant complies. Pine Forest Development, LLCeligipility map amendment shall be the first [{1 submitted their application on September 3.Tuesday in September by 5:00 p.m. Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84 .030(3)(a-d), will remain on the eligibility map if property Not applicable. This code provision does not apply as the owners file a formal request with the Deschutes 0 subject property is not on the eligibility map at this time . County Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday in January at 5:00 p.m. to remain eligible . In a ~dition to any other county code provision reg~rding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the next: 30-month period for amendments to the eligipility map, Deschutes County shall publish a notice announcing opportunities for property own~rs to apply for an amendment to the eligibility map. 0 Not applicable . Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review . Property owners must file applications for an eligibility map amendment prior to the last day of the 30-month period by 5:00 p.m. [{1 Not applicable. Ordinances 2011 -001 and 002 represent Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review. Any additional applications filed deaoline in DCC 22 .23 .010(C) processed at the end of the next cycle. after the will be 30-month 0 Applicant complies. Pine Forest Development, LLC submitted their application on September 3. Furthermore, no applications were received after September 7,2010. Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be ~ initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall: 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 Applicant complies . Deschutes County received an application submitted by the property owner or person who has written authorization. This application was on a completed County form with a filing fee and burden of proof statements cited in these findings demonstrating compliance with DCC 23 .84 .030(3)(a-d). Include documentation that demonstrates compliance with DCC 23.B4 .030(3)(a-d) , 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 I Table 5 -Map Amendment Procedures Th~ existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be amended as follows: Procedures Findings Applications adding properties to the eligibility map, the applicant will be required to demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660 012-0060 The planning director shall retain any applications received prior to the expiration of the ~O-month period Multiple applications shall be consolidated The planning director shall schedule the he~ring before the planning commission or hearings offic~r after the expiration of the 30-month period Applicant complies. Pine Forest Development, LLC submitted a transportation analysis to demonstrate conSistency with the Transportation Planning Rule . Specific findings are cited below. 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. Applicant complies. All amendments as noted in these findings are being consolidated and processed concurrently 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 ------------------------------------ I 10'1 Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC & Vandevert Road, LLC Map Afl1endment Table 6 -Destination Resort Map Eligibility Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Ineligible Areas Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soii Conservation Service or 0' within three miles of farm land within a High Value Crop Area On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 fore~t lands which are not subject to an 0' apprpved Goal exception On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as • Ilisted below, as generally mapped by the Ore~on Department of Fish and Wildlife (OD~W) in July 1984 and as further refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement Sites less than 160 acres Area's of Critical State Concern Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect : Findings 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. Applicant complies. As determined by Ordinance 92-002 , Deschutes County does not have unique farm land. This fact remains true today according to NRCS (soil conservation service) State Soil Scientist Chad L. McGrath. The Pine Forest property , also, does not contain prime farm land. The mapped soils on the Belveron property are Soil Classes 114C and 115A. Neither is a prime or unique soli. The rest of the soils on the property are unmapped soils. This site is not within 3 miles of an adjoining county . Tax lots 104 and 105 are also not within three miles within three miles of farm land within a High-Value Crop Area as shown on findings provided later in this document. 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. Applicant complies . Tax lots 104 and 105 are not identified with a protected Deschutes County Goal 5 resource where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource (Ordinances 92-040, 92-041 . 92-042 , 92 -046, 92 056 , 94-007, and 2001-019). The WA zone that applies to the Pine Forest property specifically allows destination resort development. 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 Resort Siting Process dated December 1984 that shows all especially sensitive big game habitat mapped by ODFW in July 1984 . Applicant complies . Tax lots 104 and 105 encompass one site of 278.17 contiguous acres. Tax lot 104, alone, meets the 160 acre minimum lot size as it is 179.5 acres. Tax lot 105 is 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 by ODFW as especially sensitive big game habitat, Tumalo Deer Winter Range, Metolius Deer Winter Range, Antelope Winter Range, Wildlife Priority Area or Elk Habitat Area, areas the County has chosen to protect (Ordinances 92-002 and 92-041). Page 15 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 Table 6 -Destination Resort Map Eligibility Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Findings Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODT map submitted to the South County Regi r nal Problem Solving Group lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1); Irrigctted lands zoned Exclusive Fann Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous acres in irrigation Non-c0ntiguous EF U acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres Farni or forest land within one mile outside of urbar growth boundaries Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under ORS195.145 Platt pd subdivisions 0' Applicant complies . Tax lots 104 and 105 are not mapped as a Wildlife Priority Area identified on the 1999 ODFW map. - o Applicant complies . Tax lots 104 and 105 are zoned Forest Use 2 . The following overlay zones also apply to both tax lots: Wild life Area Combining Zone (Deer Migration Corridor), o Landscape Area Combining Zone. 0' 0' Applicant complies. Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within a mile of a UGB. Applicant complies . Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within Redmond 's Urban Reserve Area , the only land in Deschutes County that is designated urban reserve under ORS 195.145. Applicant compl ies . Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within a platted subdivision. Eligible Areas Forept Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUf.-10), and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership hav in g less than 60 irrigated acres All property within a subdivision for which cluster development approval was obtained priori to 1990, for which the original cluster development approval designated at least 50 perc~nt of the development as open space and whiC~ was within the destination resort zone priori to the effective date of Ordinance 2010 024 shall remain on the eligibility map Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships o 0' 0' 0' 0 0 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 . Not applicable. Tax lots 104 and 105 are zoned Forest Use 2. The following combining zones also apply : Wildlife Area Combining Zone (De er Migration Corridor), Landscape Area Combining Zone. Not applicable . Tax lots 104 and 105 are not within a cluster development. Applicant complies . Tax lots 104 and 105 encompass one site of 278.17 contiguous acres. Tax lot 104 is 179.5 acres and tax lot 105, 98.68 acres. Tax lot 104, alone, is also a site that exceeds the 160 contiguous acres requirement. Page 16 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 Table 7 -Map Amendment Procedures The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be amended as follows: 1- Procedures All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than once every 30 months. 0 The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be the first Tue~day in September by 5:00 p.m. Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a-d}, will remain on the eligibility map if property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday ~nuary at 5:00 p.m. to remain eli gible . 0 0" Findings Applicant complies . Ordinances 2011 -001 and 002 represent Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review. fT All amendments as noted in these findings are being processed simultaneously. Applicant complies . Belveron Real Estate Partners , LLC and Vandevert Road, LLC submitted their joint application on September 3. Not applicable. This code provision does not apply as the subject properties are not on the eligibility map at this time . In addition to any other county code provision reg~rding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the next l 30-month period for amendments to the Not applicable . Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish 0 Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map a nqtice announcing opportunities for property since periodic review . owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility map. Property owners must file applications for an eligibility map amendment prior to the last day of the 30-month period by 5:00 p.m. -0 Any additional applications filed deadline in DCC 22.23.010(C) processed at the end of the next cycle . after the will be 30-month 0 Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall: Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the property owner as defined herein to make the application 0 Be completed on Planning Director a form prescribed by the Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of County Commissioners Include documentation that demonstrates compliance with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a-d} 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 0 Not applicable . Ordinances 201 1-001 and 002 re present Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review. 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. Aoolicant complies . Deschutes County received an application submitted by the property owner or person who has written authorization. This application was on a completed County form with a filing fee and burden of proof statements cited in these findings demonstrating compliance with DCC 23.84 .030(3}(a-d). 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 The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be amended as follows: Procedures Findings The planning director shall retain any app licatio ns received prior to the expiration of the 3D-month period iii Not aoolicable. 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. MUltIple applications shall be consolidated iii Applicant complies. All amendments as noted in these findings are being consolidated and processed concurrently . The planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning comm ission or hearings officer after the expiration of the 30-month period iii Not a[![!licable. 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 PlanninQ Commission . 11. Supplemental Findings Applicable to Pine Forest Development LLC Map Amendment, and Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC & Vandevert Road, LLC Map Amendment Th~ following findings supplement the findings and conclusions contained in the Pine Forest an~ BelveronNandevert tables, above, by discussing certain criteria in greater detail. All exhibit ref~rences 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 Th~ 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 : 16 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 rriiles 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 ident ified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service. SCS is a fe8eral 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 S6il 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. T~e 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 ithe 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 aCries 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 A~ea 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. TG> 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. Al l! 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 th~n EFU-LA, Exclusive Farm Use -LaPine subzone. The soil types found on these properties arEi 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 10$01. A small area in the northwest corner of Tax Lot 10501 is 115A soil. The EFU-LA zoned pam of Tax Lot 401 has approximately the same amount of 115A and 144A soil. The USDAlNRCS'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 T~x 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 n1anaged by the BLM as a part of adjacent federal land. It no longer receives special a~sessment for farm use because the property is owned by the USA and exempt from ad v~lorem 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 r~ceiving 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 wflter rights, the property is not suited to produce high value crops or products with a minimum gtoss 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 a ~e not a part of a concentration of commercial farms that are producing crops that gross $1000 pyr 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 lo:ts 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. Dpschutes 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 artld 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 cqmmercial 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 p ~eviously 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 . Fl:Jrthermore, none of the other lands within a three mile radius of the Belveron, Vandevert and Pi'ne 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 th ree 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 Pcjge 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 h~bitat was determined by the State of Oregon in 1984. These areas are shown on a map e ~titled "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 th;at shows that the Belveron, Vandevert and Pine Forest properties do not include land which is p~edominately cubic foot site Class 1 or 2 forest land is included as Exhibit o. Tl:le 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 e~ception. 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 Th,e 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 anp 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 Or~gon 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 Th~ BelveronNandevert Road and Pine Forest properties are mapped WA, Wildlife Area cOl1jlbining 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. Th~ 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 e ~pressly 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 Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Findings Applicant complies. Deschutes County does not have a UGB Ineligible Areas with a population of 100,000. The City of Bend's 2010 population, according to US Census is 76 ,639 . All of the Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing Bend urban area is located inside the City limits . No other population of 100,000 city within 24 air miles of Deschutes County has a population over 100,000. Applicant complies. As determined by Ordinance 92-002, On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of Deschutes County does not have unique farm land. This fact unique or prime farm land identified and remains true today according to NRCS (soil conservation mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or service) State Soil Scientist Chad L. McGrath. The mapped within three miles of farm land within a Highsoils on Cline Buttes are neither prime nor unique soils. The Value Crop Area site is not within three miles of farm land within a High-Value _________~___c:roR Area according to Deschutes County. 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 On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 Areas Excluded from the Goal 8 Resort Siting Process dated forest lands which are not subject to an December 1984, also, shows that the subject property does approved Goal exception 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 . Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not with in a WA overlay zone. 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 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 exhausted) in the development of the destination resort. The presence of this aggregate resource is not identified as a conflict with destination resort development and the use of the aggregate resource in resort development is not identified as a conflict with the aggregate resource. There are no conflicting uses and resort development will enable efficient use of this on-site aggregate resource construction material. The development of a destination resort in the SMIA overlay zone is not identified as a conflicting use and is not prohibited in order to protect this Goal 5 resource. Applicant complies . The DSL Cline Buttes site is not mapped Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by the Oregpn Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODPW) in July 1984 and as further refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement 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. Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes properties [Tax Sites less than 160 acres lots 5102, 5103, 5104, 5200 and 5300] constitute one site of 360 contiguous acres. Tax lot 5300, alone, meets the 160 acre minimum lot size as it is 160 acres. Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within Areas of Critical State Concern the Metolius sub-basin , the only area of critical state concern in Deschutes County. Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not mapped Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect: by ODFW as Especially sensitive big game habitat, Tumalo Deer Winter Range, Metolius Deer Winter Range, Antelope Winter Range, Wildlife Priority Area or Elk Habitat Area, areas the County has chosen to protect (Ordinances 92-002 and 92-041 . Page ~3 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 Table 6 -Destination Resort Map Eligibility Destination Resort Map Eligibility Criteria Findings Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a Deschutes County designated wildlife management overlay Wildlife Priority Area, area nor is it mapped as a Wildlife Priority Area identified on _____.;t;...;he 1999 ODFW map . Lahds zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) Lands zohed Fo rest Use 1 (F-1); 0 Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is zoned EFU SC and is not irrigated nor does it possess any water rights. Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) The soils, topography and exposure (elevation, slope and having 40 or greater contiguous acres in aspect) render this site non-arable or not farmable. irrigation Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres 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 . Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under Redmond's Urban Reserve Area, the only land in Deschutes ORS 195.145 County that is designated urban reserve under ORS 195.145. Platted subdivisions Applicant complies . The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a platted subdivision. Eligible Areas Not applicable . The DSL Cline Buttes site is zoned EFU-SC Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture and is not irrigated nor does it possess any water rights . (MLi,A-10), and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones - Uni rri gated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land 0 Applicant complies . The DSL Cline Buttes site is zoned EFU Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 SC and is not irrigated nor does it possess any water rights. contiguous acres in irrigation The soils, topography and exposure (elevation , slope and Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same aspect) render this site non-arable or not farmable. ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres All property within a subdivision for which cluster development approval was obtained prior to 1990, for which the original cluster development approval designated at least 50 Not applicable The DSL Cline Buttes site is not within a perc~nt of the development as open space and cluster development. which was within the destination resort zone prior to the effective date of Ordinance 2010 024 shall remain on the eligibility map Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or Applicant complies. The DSL Cline Buttes site is 360 greater under one or multiple ownerships contiguous acres. Page 24 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 -------- Table 7 -Map Amendment Procedures The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be amended as follows: Procedures All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than once every 30 months. 0 The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be the first Tuesday in September by 5:00 p.m. I Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23 .B4 .030(3)(a-d), will remain on the eligibil ity map if property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday in January at 5:00 " .m. to remain eligible. 0 0 Findings Aoolicant complies . Ordinances 2011 -001 and 002 represent Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review.19 All amendments as noted in these findings are being processed simultaneously. Applicant complies. DSL's agent submitted the Cline Buttes site DR Map Amendment application on September 7,2010 . Not applicable. This code provision does not apply as the subject properties are not on the eligibility map at this time. 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 0 notice announcing opportunities for property owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility map. Property owners must file applications for an eligibility map amendment pri or to the last day of 0 the 30-month period by 5:00 p.m. Any additional applications filed after the deadline in DtC 22.23 .010(C) will be processed at the end [(] of th¢ next 30-month cycle. Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall: 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 0 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 DCC 23.B4.030(3)(a-d) AlJplications adding properties to the eligibility map, the applicant will be required to demonstrate consistency with the [(] Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660-012 0060 Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review. Not applicable. Ordinances 2011-001 and 002 represent Deschutes County's first amendment to its eligibility map since periodic review. Applicant complies . DSL's agent submitted the Cline Buttes site application on September 7, 2010. Furthermore, no applications were received after September 7,2010. Aoolicant complies . Deschutes County received an application submitted by the property owner or person who has written authorization. This application was on a completed County form with a filing fee and burden of proof statements cited in these findings demonstrating compliance with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a-d). Applicant complies. DSL's agent submitted the Cline Buttes 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 The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be a~ended as follows: Procedures Findings The planning director shall retain any applications received prior to the expiration of the 30-month 0 period Multiple applications shall be consolidated 0 The planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning commission or hearings officer 0 after the expiration of the 30-month period Not apolicable. 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. Applicant complies . All amendments as noted in these findings are being consolidated and processed concurrently. Not applicable. Orchnances 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 Plannin Commission. 13.. Supplemental Findings Applicable to the DSL Cline Buttes requested Destination Resort Overlay Map Amendment Th$ 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 ref~rences are to the Relevant Facts document submitted by Belveron Real Estate Partners, LL~. 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 0 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 ConselVation SelVice 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, DRS 197.455(1) (B). The term "High Value Crop Area" is defined by DRS 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 Rule 21 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/OARS600/0AR660/660012.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) VandevertJBelveron/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 B 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' attorneys 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-Ievel 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-Ievel 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 ODOr'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. Wtth 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 I 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. I 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. I t I 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». I 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. t Goals 15 through 19 are not applicable to any amendments to the County's comprehensive J j plan because the county has none of those types of lands. 10. Consistency with Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan i 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, I 22 ht1p:Jlegov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goaI8.pdf 23 DCC 18.113.050(B)(5) and (11 c) i Page 38 of 40 -Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-001 j 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 DRS 197.455(1J(f), 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 DRS 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 2 23 r I1-- 27 26 r---T-- 28 3 25 ... CalderaI Springs ... --.. City of La Pine 4 Exhibit "8" Legend Attachment 1 State Highway Index Map -:.. Exhibit "B" Map Ind ex to Ordinance 2011-001 County Boundary Unincorporated Community ® Urban Growth Boundary ------..--.... - OcIober 13, 2011 Jefferson County I03 I 02 01 I -+---~- 07 OS I I I 12 I , -+- I 18 16 I 14 13 I 19 20 22 24 ---___+-~_.____.._I-------_;_--. ,--. ---~-----.....---f\. 30 29 28 27 26 25 ~ --~~=~~----,--.--~--~-~--~-------_r---------~--------~~ 32 34 Exhibit liB" Legend Attachment 1 State Highway o Ta x Lot Boundary Map 1 of 29 r -.J Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 ,.. ________....._ ..O'--~CiLa. c-__..._ ...... .,............~ o...-a.-rr -__.............---"'_".....-.11_... I -_ Exhibit "B" Map Index ___-..._ "'-_1'-_•• _.---. ""........ -.,...-.,.. _......-,.,. ..-"~ ...-..--...-......,......® Unincorporated Community o 0.25 0 .5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary ,.........~~~§iii~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!Miles Grandfather Clause Eligible Property October 13. 2011 __ Jefferson County .00 os 04 03 02 --------~----------t----------.~~----------+--.------~~-----------L--I 08 09 10 12 --I...-~...,..,...,~----~--------fr--------------f--4:--.,....----;o--+-r-.,---------I-.--I1 17 ---"---7---------I-+-~---~ 13 Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 State Highw ay o Ta x Lot Boundary Map 2 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 ::, Exhibit "B" Map Index .._tal ......-..... o.co..~c.......-~-----~-.~~,., ___ ... -_-...a.r,..._.. .. ____.....___• .. .::.:..-:.~• .::-:.:.=:.:--:-...:.== Unincorporated Community _ -.1... -............. ® ....... ........,~-~--. o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary !!!P""""'I!!5~-5iiiiiZ~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!Miles Grandfather Clause Eligible Property October 13. 2 011 -- I Jefferson County -I I--I \- - i- I--f r ." IX t.§ J-i---.--O__-1 r h Legend State Highway o Ta x Lot Boundary r , Section Line I :.,Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Exhibit "8" Attachment 1 Map 3 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0.2 5 0.5 1.5 M 'Miles ;'---, ; , \ u "'--..------~-go Qoo_~Q'.. ~-.:..::=..:==:::-..=.:=::~ ______..110 ~ -.-.~... -... -.-.-........ ~.. _..---.-...... ........ -~ ,10 ,--.. ~ ....... _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Odober 13. 2011 Jefferson County I ---t 11 14 I I I 12 13 24 Exhibit "S" Legend Attachment 1 State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary Map 4 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 I :,Exhibit "B" Map Index -=--;:::====-S:5:I S _.. ... =_r.. ___,._ _ '....... -~.-..-.•. ----....-Unincorporated Community ® -..... --...,... o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary !!M!!5iiiiil!!~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~M lles _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Odobe r 13, 2011 () (3 o A () o c: :> -< Jefferson County 01 12 18 Exhibit "8"Legend State Highway Attachment 1 D Tax Lot Boundary Map 5 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 I -:, Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary ~P""""'I!!"!!'Iiiiiiiii~§iiil!!!!!!!!!'!!!!'!~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!M iles _ Grandfather Clause El igible Property Oc1obef 13 . 2011 o o o 7': o o c:: ~ -< Exhibit "B"Legend State Highway Attachment 1 D Tax Lot Boundary Map 6 of 29 r , Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 _ ...._ ___..., _ _ c.--.c.....,....G .•I :., Exhibit "B" Map Index ....._ ..._.__... __...." ~. c......,. ---.......-..... --.-~.......,.., ---..-....------..-.._................. Unincorporated Community ~.-....... ~---~- ® --..-_ ......... o 0.25 0.5 1.5Urban Growth Boundary ~,..........!!'!!'Iiiiiiiij~!Iiii~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! M iles _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property October 13. 2011 Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 N State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary Map 7 of29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 l-.. ..........._____ ....~-'"""eo-~~!. ® -c..._....,,_..-......P .......-.... ~~I -:, Exhibit "B" Map Index -.......'"---...-_........-~ ......... _....-...-"' .... ---.......... ..... ~------...."".........-..--....--.-....-_..-'"Unincorporated Commun ity o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary ~"""""'!!!!!Iiiiiiii!-5;;;iii!!!~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~!M i'es _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Octobe( 13, 2011 t--L _ ' .LL J f-=LY t-- I L 1 ITl . r---Wr IL7r--f-t= ~ i 1== I ~~r-~=r-+-----'--,---l--J .--~--I·~~------,~~~-c~.~--~r----~. " '"... ] -.. ! -- - r e~u~07~---~~~-. ~.. ~----.oo " '" E1fL---+--·---ja : r h il---.----l-T--l FE: \ [') U l r-C3 a _._- 1...... I t& , i Ii T:-15 R:-11-----t------~i~---- i 1--\ i I I22 23 24v-l I ~,~ I 1\ I \~ f.lf-t=t~~,\"---r-...J....._---H\~~----+----"-~-----~--t--' ~.. \"' 8 27~:lo r-___" -'-'_f-~-'-'--'-""""I' %j,-,-, \ ,~... " f-~S l ' es C i r-\ .Fr .~ q-T-,T ,-IT'-. , -~! Ii ~ U ,,.- \ II 26 25 I 36 I-- Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary Map 8 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 flIt ..........._____...._ .. o._CIIIIoit"''G r. c..__...____I0.1... "firI -:. Exhibit "8" Map Index ---............--. ..-~....... -_iIIII_---,_ ...._.,_............."" ........._~..,.... ~.... ~~ , -.........-~ Unincorporated Community ® -.--.... --......-. N' de p t; M'It.. ,,.,... _~ o O.2S D.S I.SUrban Growth Boundary ~e5iiii;i5i1i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_! Miles _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property October 13. 2011 ---- 07 17 15 " '" t---t--'-...I--ii......l--l...--+---r--r----4--I-,--T.-15·R~1 0 -----+~~tr---~.....,....,...1--..-br..=t~~ I " 19 30 29 ------+--...".:::::...... 31 32 I " "21 22 33 23 Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary Map 9 of 29 r ..J Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 n._....__....._ .....-...O'_~ c.. __• _ _._.._ ...u,.......... o..-.~ GllI -_ Exhibit "B" Map Index ===...~..-=:=.:===::..-: __.... _ ...100 ...~.--.. --...-~~-........ Unincorporated Community ® -~~-0 .25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary !I""""'1~!liiiiiiil!""'Iiiiiiiil!~!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""'IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi!eS Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Odober 1 3 , 2011 ~___ ~ I__ . I T I I 05 0300 04 r-r---~--~----------~---------~----------4--------I I 11 121007 08 09 I I Ir---~----~~--------~------------~----------J--------+-----------~~ I 14161716 1--_; -----"13.---::-r [ I 15 1------t-------+----T.-15.k,09 --------i-I-----_~-----_-I-n-LJIII I i I I I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~-. w I ------+--------f-----------t---+-------+ j I ~ '" "I ~D " ~-------j,..-.------t----+----l----_t----- I " I ~ n ~ ~ LI36 I---L--.~_-......--. _ -._ ..____-'--________...L______ _--1- Exhibit "B" Legend Attachment 1 State Highway o Ta x Lot Boundary Map 10 of 29 r , Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 r'.=..._____..............c-~I GI. O"' __111 ..._ .... _U •• c-~~·_.r =_ Exhibit "B" Map Index ---.... '---"..-_.-........... --... --...~ -..-_.......... --... _..---..........._---.-..... ---"""_....--® Unincorporated Community o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary M~iiiii;!!!!!!Iiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil! MIl es _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property October 13,. 2011 - \ 1-- I- Legend State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary r 1 Section Line I -:, Exhibit "B" Map tndex Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Exhibit "8" Attachment 1 Map 11 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0.2 5 0.5 !"""'I October 13. 2011 1 .5 'Miles J , ,.._.._____ ..c.--..~c;.l~_ . 0:-__...._""....... ..._--.. ~,~ -----_.........__... ...-;,. ....~ _.... --...-,.... ....--_.. _........... ........ .. ---...--,.-....--,~,..... _ .--....., .....-......~_~_~I - -- Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary Map 12 of 29 r ~Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 n.__..__...,....-.....c.-'-"lrI.~.c-__..______...,~. ...~ a.-.~I :..Exhibit "B" Map Index __ ......-,-"II-._...-.-"'*'''''''a.............----..-r--.____ on._ .... -.....__. ....... t ....... _-...._~-----_.._Un incorporated Community ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary !H~iiiii;l-~iiiiii~~!!!!!!!!!!!!~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!M Ues _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Qaober 13 . 201 1 07 I I 1 19 17 -- 20 I_--.J_~~L 21 - 23 24 - 26 () o o,... () o c: ::> -< Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 State Highway o Tax lot Boundary Map 13 of 29 r ~Section line to Ordinance 2011-001 I :,Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community ® o 0.25 0.5 Urban Growth Boundary ~~~~__~~~~~__~1.S October 13, 2011 ' M iles _ Grandfather Clause EI'Igl·bl e Property _ _ __ I I I 06 05 1--- rJ1 j I - r-t- I I18 r--- Crook County I r -uq 03 -- I 10 I I 16 ~, r --> f-i I .1 01 -- 12 r- 1----,3 ~ ~ r-------rrhn~rrn~~~~T17R . 1 ~r--'------r---~-+--L~ .H-H--H -H, ++JU' -r·Jil~d4'"I-t--+--t-~~=LJ , IT r - I-r ---"I ~"""n ~ 19 I- _ l ~, I 1-== l::±= I -E.--:l- 32 I LjlLl ' , rTl--t-'YlU--rcU i ,; c I 35 I ..':'0»<" ~ f u Ir---- 1--- R I II LJ 36 o 0 a 0 ;0: 0 0 c ::J -< Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1 State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary Map 14 of 29 r -.J Section Line to Ordinance 20 11-001 ~"" ~_,,_::...,·.O I.:,Exhibit "'B"' Map Inde x o... _ _ ...........__ ...... ... w o. ~·~~ ~_ _ ..._____..._ _ <lt ~"..... - .....woo ·_ ..._ ,,_ ......... _.~--.. Unincorporated Community .--..."'--.......... ® ....,..-...... ~~-~ _ '-~ ~ o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary 1!I!,.......,5iiii1!!"!!5iii~!!!!!"!~____!Mlje.s _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property october 13. 2011 I ~ I LI I V00 05 04 I R.•/.. ~ ,---\~ I-I07 1\,-- / D CS / - v~~V 15 I I-i-f-. It: H,.. '1 ~ ~ hJ~i'a! Bend ILT~-1-7 r-r ~F ..1 Airport I L7 -.j PH i r .. I, ~ t---t--- t- f--. t- e- r ~ ~ rn If ~ "\ tt= r-i I r0 I ~ ~eI,f, lIcls '~dr- 't I (idv 1-1= 8f : .u. f-.t=II r-r-I-- ! I-I--- bn~ ~ ~ , U JU JI r-=l=i-f- l ~~ ~ ~ -j .') '" f-f--'~WI~~.ef 29 f' L ~h 1=' l r~~ I-- r'CR Alfalfa Mkt Rd f~/ ~l ~ l-r:~-(. J w, ~~ ~ , 1I:I:tt __ i!::: ~ , r 1\"rJ ~J ~ I ~~~I ,< ~ ~\ ... i ~ 1= i\ I-I-~ Oi ~----~ i ~ _.. T ~ 1f--f-.~ 1"-.../11 r I: U tJ ." ~_ f--+'" .~ ~ III J ' ~ 1 \\\ J 34 r. r- l-I 1 Ir~ IT r ' [liQ1 ~ 11 --L _ .~-~I ! rr:~~"--~~;....-..;; b ~ I-jlf):' ~\ ~ ~.~ i71 -~ ~' " - 1 1 02 1 01 __1___. I I11 I 12 -C r- 14 ~-...-. 13 I --,-~ i L 1 I 24 I,---- I 125 ".\ I':.~ ~ -~~ ~~ -1 '~ 1 I35 "-"'-36 ,.-- '-I-J L_. i II iY il ! , ~.. 1 " \\ Exhibit "8"Legend Attachment 1State Highway o Ta x Lot Boundary Map 15 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 n-__...____~___..C._c:-.." Q II ® o-_ _ ...._ ...._ ... ... _ ..W' . ....... I :,Exhibit "A " Map Index -===--=-:=..-=..-=..:==:.:.""!__ • 01 __.-........--#11 _____.,_ _ /W • ..-_,-,,-,_Unincorporated Community o 0 .25 0.5 1.5Urban Growth Boundary !,!!iI""""II5iiiiii!5iz!"!!!!!!!!!!"!!!!!!!!!§;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;i' Miles _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property OCIober 13,201 1 Exhibit "B" Legend State Highway Attachment 1 o Tax Lot Boundary Map 16 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 ______.""""____....,.._C--~... 4 .1. -OoII_....,......_ ••"'u """''''..-.." c-....--,.., Exhibit "B" Map Index --...----..-.~....,......,-." ....... =':':I~ ~".!"!:='=--=====__..-.-_""'_....IM _ Unincorporated Community ® ~-'.~~...,--'.- o 0.25 0.5 1.5Urban Growth Boundary ~H!!IIiiiiil!-~~ii!!~!!!!~!!!!5iioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~! Miles Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Odober 13, 2011 of. 17 ---~----~----------------,------------ I 1~ I 20 --'-l---.~~--~~ 31 29 Exhibit "8"Legend State Highway Attachment 1 o Tax Lot Boundary Map 17 of 29 r 1 Section lin e to Ordinance 2011-001 tt._....__.-...._....__O'-~Ga.__4 ..._ ..__ .....___,.~ o.--~I =-..., Exh ibit "B" Map Inde x ---...--......--.--.~~ Unincorporated Community ® =-.=7=~~-=-":=== """'-'-"'_.-.l J _o 0.25 0.5 1.5 Urban Growth Boundary !!!!I"""!I!!'IiiiiiiiiZ!!iiiiiiil~~~~§iiii___iiilMiles Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Odober 13. 2011 I.I 05 03 I 08 I 09 10 I ---+--- I 18 17 I 16 15 I ---+---T:-181.R:-1~.- I I 19 20 I 21 I I 30 1 I 28 ~___I___J ___~ 3 1 I I : ~ I 33 34 11 35 Exhibit "B" Legend Attachment 1 State Highway o Ta x Lot Boundary Map 18 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 n._""_____,.....-._Ot_.. ••~O -I -_ Exhibit "B" Map Index ~~:-.=..---=.=::-...::.:--w.=:..=::-::::.::::.;:u,.;..:-...:===® Unincorporated Community ~~--... ...--• _f""'"""'''-':~..JII'!I_~.-o 025 0.5 1.5Urban Growth Boundary ,.........!!!!Iiiiiiii~Iiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!IiiiIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi1es _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property OCtOber 1 3, 201 1 Exhibit "B" Legend State Highway Attachment 1 D Tax Lot Boundary Map 19 of 29 r 1 Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 tho _ ......____...._ ...O'-~'I Q.LSI :,Exhibit "B" Map Index -e-_..,.."'.._.,........U...1If o-:.o-c:.u.:. ~--..,..---...__.. --............,.~..........-.... __It_...... ~._____._,.,.,_ "'""'_--....._-.a Unincorporated Community ® -....-""'~...-- 0.25 0.5 1.5Urban Growth Boundary ,....,!!!'Ii~!!IiiiiZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;;;j! M iles Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Oct ober 13, 2011 Exhibit "B" Legend State Highway Attachment 1 [ i Tax Lot Boundary Map 20 of 29 r ..J Section Line to Ordinance 2011-001 I -:.. Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community ® O.2~ o .~ UUrban Growth Boundary !H"!!!!!i;;;i;j--~!!Iiiii;i;i!!!!!~!!!!'!!!Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;;;;ij! Mites Grandfather Clause Eligible Property OcIOber t3, 2011 --""1 I .--I ----1 J _1--1 I I 'I I ~I,_ r oo _ r--+--~ /1 ---,-__ -i I ~ , Dod dsRd v/"'p / I I ! ~ ~ J 00 , L I -00 I ~~J __ " -"--I I I I I 18 I 17 '-'-16 ---" I " I " I . I I I I I --t---~-T~18R·j'l---i----i--__ , " I " I " I " I " I I I I I I 24 --t----1 ! --r-------- " I " I " 1 V I " I ~I----I-! J ----L __ I ----.J - - - -I I I __ . 25 Legend State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary r , Seclio n Line I :, Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I 1 1 I I I " -J_ -~~-~lli._J ~I L , j \ ... _, ~ ~ ~ I L 1'1* 'I ~LI I Exhibit "S" Attachment 1 Map 21 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® 1.5 00 ~0.~25 ~0~.5 !!!!!!!!!!~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! Mires H OcI ober 13, 2011 00 I I I 05 -!-~---I 07 I 00 03 02 01 11 12 I I --~---~~~--t---~-~ 18 15 ~l:--·-·------+----~T:-19 R:-11---- --,---!--.l~ 30 Legend N State Highw ay D Ta x Lot Boundary r ...J Section Line I :., Exh ibit "B" Map Index Un inccrporated Community Urban Growth Boundary _ Grandfath er Clau se Eli g ible Property [J 22 27 Exhibit "8" Attachment 1 Map 22 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0.25 0.5 , 5 P!II"""""II!!!Iiii;iZ-5;;;i;i!~~I!!!!!!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil' M iles Odobe(13 .201 1 I I 14 23 26 35 13 24 25 36 Legend State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary r , Sec lion Line I ::.. Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Exhibit liB" Attachment 1 Map 23 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 ~H!5iiii!~.-iI!'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil! Miles OCtober 13, 2011 --.,...._ ..... ____ ..... _ .. a..-c-.. ou C-_ ... n ... __ .... "' •• ___ ... w-o..o..c...w --_ ............ __ . ..-.--.. ........ _ .... .......-r-...... _._._-... ... --.. -----.._I.~..-._-...-.,...--_"--___ ."-00_- Legend State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary r 1 Section Line -:, Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary 32 _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property I 10 I 11 12 I ---+-- 16 15 --T R7"""l1 21 28 33 22 27 34 Exhibit "8" Attachment 1 Map 24 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® OcIober 13 . 2011 I I I I I I I I I I 14 I I ---+ --- I 23 I 24 I __ -....L --- I I 25 26 __ J ___ I 35 I 36 I -"" __ ,.. ___ .... ~ __ a.-~O \& Co!o! __ .. ",. __ ... _ ................ " ~~ -~.,. .. -"""---... .-~.~~ .. -.. -,...-,.... ....... -.. _.-.-., ... _,.."' ____ ow _."'"' ......... _~ ... ~ --.-.-.."",_I"'_~ I I 04 I I I I 03 I 02 I 01 05 ---t----~-~ I I I --I ---1--- ~ I 00 I " I " I " ---~ I --~----I--- I I I I I HI" I " I " I I 13 -t---t--T~'21-R:-11--- I 20 I 21 22 23 24 I -~----~----~---.-----!-- - - Legend State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary r , Section Line :., Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Grandfather Clause Eligible Property I I I v I ~ I 25 " -1----~--- 33 34 Exhibit "8" Attachment 1 Map 25 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® I I b o 0,25 0,5 1,5 1!!!!!""!5Z!!!!!1iiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii' Miles Ooober 13 . 2011 35 36 -___ .~ __ ~_""_I .. Ot_~G.&. e.. __ .... __ ......... ...-.-.. ... ~~ ..... -.,---.--........ ~.-... _" ... ~. n.., .... __ .... _ .. --..... ... _ .. ______ .. _.,...a ~.-:w .-...._...-0. ___ ~ __ ..... 100 ..- -- I 18 I 17 I t:J 1:l- - -. - 19 I I -I H --- I r--! I 20 r--m r--1=1-f=~ - - ---T-.--.~ "" I 11 L' _. ~- Deo<Ion R /~ I I Legend State Highway D Tax Lot Boundary r ...J Section Line I -:.. Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Bo undary I~ 'r1f- .J- ......... j 1--1----' t--t::1 _ Grandfather Clause Eligible Property .J J J . i::j:i'" I H )¥i Exhibit "8" Attachment 1 Map 26 of 29 8u, •• " Rd to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 I!!!H!II!Iiiiiiiiiii~iiiiI!!!!!~~!!"IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiil!M iles October 13. 2011 ;) - II 7 ~~"' ____ "'''''_ ... ~~.G''' c.. ... ~~ n __ .. __ ....... __ ..... a-..o.u.:, --_ ..... --.... ....... -.~.-qo.-~ _ ..... -.,..--_ ... _ ... _---..- =~=:''!.''=:--~--- "'- I 05 D4 03 I 02 , -----_L __ J ___ 07 08 09 18 17 16 15 ----.--------r---------------4~~------~ 19 30 31 Legend State H ig hway C Ta x Lot Boundary r 1 Section Line I -:, Exh ibit "B" Map Index Un inc orporated Community Urban Growth Boundary Grandfa th er Clau se Eligible Property 29 32 Burg :s Rd 21 ---- 28 ----- 33 Exhibit "S" Attachment 1 Map 27 of 29 22 to Ord inance 2011-001 ® o 0.25 0.5 1.5 ~,......,5iiiZ-5iiii1!~!!!!!!!!I!!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;;;;iil! Mi les Qaober 13. 201 1 I 11 I 12 I ---_I_- I I 14 24 I ___ I- I 26 I I 25 I ----I I 35 I 36 I -n._ .. _____ ..... _ .. O'-"~G-l .. _1_ .... _ .. ,.._1001 1. __ .. 111' ~.a..., -...... -.... .. __ ._...., ....... -... --.....-.-..--..----. .. --. .....-.-...... ..-..... --....---_ .. ..,._ ...... - I .~------------~-------- 06 Legend Stale Highway o Ta x Lot Boundary r 1 Sectio n Line I ~ Exhibit "B" Map Inde x Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary 05 _ Grandfather Cla use Eligible Property ·--·----·-1----.~ C'--J-' . III I -03--' ···········-02 I 01 ; --+--------~-.-~-__I_-!-,-~~r:<a:J Klamath County Exhibit "S" Attachment 1 Map 28 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® October 1 J, 201 1 -..._-... ___ ...... _ ... 0.-"Cit" C-_I _ .... .-.. .. _ ..... ,..... .. ~ -~ __ ..,.._____-_______ ,,7'110..- _ ...... ~_ "'""."' .. _ ..... 0. ....... l~ ... -'::-~---::'''' ."':.r:.'.=.r----.--... --....-...,.-..... ...... -~- f-----!--« I----!---ig Legend State Highway o Tax Lot Boundary r ~ Section Line -_ Exhibit "B" Map Index Unincorporated Community Urban Growth Boundary 20 Grandfather Clause Eligible Property Klamath County Exhibit "B" Attachment 1 Map 29 of 29 to Ordinance 2011-001 ® o 0 .25 0_5 1.5 !!H~-!!"!5iiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!~ _____ !Mi!es OcIober 13, 2011 L \ 1'01 --- Reod Rd 24 = 25 , .. --i-C --- ~I