HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances 001-002 - Dest Resort Map Amend (3)Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1%0
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of April 19, 2010
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: April 5, 2010.
FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department
385-1709
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
A continuation of a public hearing on Ordinance Nos. 2010-001, amending Title 23, the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan to adopt remapping goals and policies, and 2010-002, adding a chapter to
the Deschutes County Code Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures which will adopt
Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Initiated by staff and further modified by the Deschutes County Planning Commission, Ordinances Nos.
2010-001 and 2010-002 create a process and criteria the County will follow to change its destinatic;n
resort map. The two ordinances:
• List clear and objective mapping criteria for areas that are ineligible for siting destination resorts:
• List clear and objective mapping criteria for areas that are eligible for siting destination resorts; &
• Describe the process for amending Deschutes County's Destination Resort Map.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
First reading by Title only, Ordinance Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 Exhibits A and B.
ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky and Legal Counsel
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Peter Gutowsky, CDD.
St S
Community Development Departrnient
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Healt i Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 977( 1-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)315-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner
DATE: January 8, 2010
HEARING: January 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Destination Resort Remapping / Summarizing Planning Commission Testimony
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners asked staff, at their January 6 work session, to
summarize destination resort remapping testimony submitted into the record during the
Planning Commission's November 19 and December 2 public hearings. The purpose of the
summary is to prepare them for their hearing on January 20.
November 19
Public Hearing
Summary of Destination Resort Remapping Testimony
Prohibit destination resorts within 5 air miles of Bend's UGB.
The following issues warrant attention:
• Costs of destination resorts
• Percentage of economic activity at resorts that are a diversion from
other existing visitor -serving amenities
• Value of wildlife
• Costs of public services
• Are taxes levied on resorts collected in full
• True costs and benefits of destination resorts
• Penalties preventing construction of less than the required amount of
overnight units before permanent Tots are sold
• Stronger enforcement
• Mitigation fund which could be forfeited to the County if not used
• High wildfire risk should be exempt from eligibility
Questions the haste of the current destination resort remapping process.
Safety of the natural environment is an important criteria for siting a resort.
Develop a full soils map and overlay it on the existing resort map, showini
that it complies with high value soils (Soil 65A)
Safety concerns in Tumalo resulting from resort development that have nc :
been addressed; trans•ortation an ongoing issue.
Encourage smaller resorts which would have a minimal impact on services.
Postpone final mapping process until the Comprehensive Plan policies have
been finalized regarding resort size and location.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
November 19
Public Hearing
Requests properties of less than 160 acres be included so that parcels can
be combined.
Clarify "lots," "parcels," "sites," etc., in the generic sense versus legal
terminology.
Allow at least 90 days for people to file applications after the Board's
decision.
Developers of Targe -scale destination resorts have to spend a lot of money to
build.
Tourists visit cities, contributing to the local economy.
Oppose a five -mile resort prohibition from Bend's UGB.
F-1 land should be eligible for resorts.
Areas within the Deschutes Basin may not be acceptable for resorts (ex.
aquifer under Thornburgh site).
Require a map amendment applicant to pay for transportation, water, safety,
height, environmental, and wildlife studies.
Develop a list of independent firms to perform the studies before remapping
amendments are adopted.
Preserve open space and consider the lifestyle and great places to live in
Deschutes County before considering remapping areas for new resorts.
Pronghorn is nothing but a subdivision.
The remapping amendments should be continued beyond February 2010.
Remove all the eligible land from the destination resort map.
Consider a moratorium on new resorts.
Destination resorts are an attack on state land use laws and have nothing to
do with providing a service.
Mapping depends in large part on whether the resorts cater to rural
subdivisions or whether they cater to tourism and include overnight housing.
Identify the amount of room and property taxes collected from each resort.
No more destination resorts.
Protect public resources like water, fish and wildlife.
Exclude resorts within 10 miles of a UGB or 10 miles from an existing
destination resort.
Require economic assessment which affirmatively demonstrates clear and
positive economic development for the region before approving new resorts.
Repeal existing destination resort map.
Need a scientific water survey.
A new map must take into consideration threatened or endangered species
as well as analyses where development would diminish wildlife or their
habitat.
Stren• then sitinre • uirements for resorts
No further destination resorts in the south county groundwater study area.
Allow small destination resorts
Current siting criteria too restrictive. Rely solely on state statute.
AIIow contiguous properties less than 160 acres to be eligible.
2
November 19
Public Hearing
Opposed to any effort aimed at facilitating additional resort development in
the county that does not first take serious steps to address the numerous
issues pertaining to traffic, affordable housing, wildlife, groundwater, and
impacts to neighbors and neighboring communities.
Opposed to development models so heavily focused on the sale of real
estate for residential purposes as opposed to the generation of true tourism.
Troubled by the fact that Deschutes County continues to invest substantial
time and effort into remapping at a time when the issue remains so clearly in
play at the state level.
Put this portion of the comprehensive plan update on the back burner until
there is clarity at the state level.
Destination resort development leads to loss of critical deer and elk habitat.
Developed areas become at risk for wildfire
Limit destination resorts to those areas that relate to and showcase rural
agricultural and natural resources, leaving more urban recreation activities to
urban areas.
Encourage a variety of resort sizes that focus on the diversity of natural
resources.
Development regulations must apply equally to both large and small resorts.
Restrict residences and non -natural resource related recreational uses so
more property owners, investors, and developers might be attracted to the
resort field.
Oppose destination resorts because it allows suburbia to interfere with the
rural lifestyle.
Resorts and tourism provide few high paying jobs once the initial construction
is completed.
Revenue from a potential increase in taxes should be weighed against loses
in quality of life (open space, natural habitat, farm, and forest).
Don't need more traffic
Rural areas should be protected from resort development
December 2
Public Hearing
Clarify acknowledged Goal 5 planning program
Destination resorts provide an important tax based to local fire districts.
Destination resorts do not reduce but actually add to the safety of areas by
installing fire hydrants and implementing defensible space
Destination resorts are good for the economy. There is more wildlife in
developed areas.
Golf courses use less water per acre than agricultural crops.
Destination resorts are sited on land that is beautiful and generally less
productive for farming.
It would lessen the impact on irrigated agriculture if resorts were encouraged
to be sited on irrigated land.
Resorts use far less public services than they provide.
Simplify the destination resort remaping process.
Fish and wildlife are important for the livability of Deschutes County.
No resorts in the County have met state criteria.
3
December 2
Public Hearing
Collect more data from independent studies before embarking on a
remapping program.
Evaluate the Central Oregon Land Watch report, documenting the socio-
economic impacts of destination resorts.
Deschutes County needs updated wildlife inventories because it is important
to protect recreational resources.
Standards set forth in the amendments should be upheld and strengthened
where resorts have failed to provide the economic development as promised.
A moratorium on new resort applications should be put in place until existing
resorts are fully built out and we know they are economically viable land use
decisions and not new county liabilities.
Special consideration should be given to: wildland urban interface,
groundwater flows, especially to Whychus Creek, open space and non -
motorized recreation, and rural livability.
Protect wildlife connectivity.
LPrevent land use decisions from creating ecological islands
Allow adjacent properties to combine with each other, but only if at least one
of the properties is already greater than 160 acres.
Current siting language is too restrictive and does not meet intent of Goal 8.
Destination resort language should be streamlined to be more in line with
state statute.
Oppose 5 -mile prohibition of destination resorts from Bend's UGB.
Allow contiguous property owners, Tess than 160 acres, to qualify for
eligibility.
Permit properties smaller than 160 acres to be combined with contiguous
properties to satisfy the 160 -acre requirement for resort eligibility.
Develop a vision.
Acknowledge public regulations and lands that restrict resort development.
Identify appropriate County locational criteria.
4
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES-COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 23, the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan, Adopting
Destination Resort Remapping Goals and
Policies, and Declaring an Emergency.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-001
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") directed staff to initiate a plan amendment
to adopt goals and policies for destination resort remapping; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission held a duly noticed pubic hearing on
November 19, 2009, and on December 2, 2009 on the proposed Destination Resort Goals and Policies; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission on December 2, 2009 forwarded a
recommendation to the Board to adopt the proposed Destination Resort. Goals and Policies; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on January 13, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it in the public interest to adopt the Destination Resort Goals and Polici s,
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.84, Destination Resorts, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in G.rl'�ggh.
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Section 3. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passag;�.
Dated this of , 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
, Chair
, Vice Chair
Recording Secretary
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2010.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2010.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Tammy Baney
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
Effective date: day of , 2010.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-001 (1/13/10)
, Commissioner
Exhibit A
Chapter 23.84. DESTINATION RESORTS
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
23.84.020. Goals.
23.84.030. Policies.
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
Since 1979, destination resorts have increased in importance to the economy of Deschutes County. In
1989, recognizing the importance of tourism to the economy of the State of Oregon, the state legislature and
the Land Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC") took steps to make it easier to establish
destination resorts on rural lands. Statewide Planning Goal 8, the recreation goal, was subsequently
amended to specify a process for locating destination resorts on rural land without taking an exception to
Goals 3, 11 and 14. This was followed by legislation incorporating Goal 8 into Oregon's land use statutes.
By these actions, the State of Oregon recognized destination resorts as a legitimate rural land use. Under
these changes, destination resorts may be sited in EFU zones where they were not allowed before.
Following the changes to the state regulations, because implementation of destination resort siting under
Goal 8 was optional and the county had not undertaken that implementation, the developers of Eagle Crest
applied for legislative changes in the County's comprehensive plan and implementing land use ordinances.
The Eagle Crest developers wished to expand their current resort to adjacent lands and wished to do so
without going through the exceptions process. They were able to do so when the County adopted a
destination resort overlay map. In order, Pronghom, Caldera Springs, and Tetherow resorts have been sited
since that time. Resorts existing prior to the legislative change, such as Black Butte, Sunriver and the Inn of
the Seventh Mountain have also expanded and been rezoned to Urban Unincorporated Community and
Resort Community, respectively.
In March 1990, LCDC adopted the "forest rule." This rule allows destination resorts to be sited on
forest lands pursuant to Goal 8. The county adopted this rule for land zoned Forest Use -2. Additionally, the
legislature, in 2003, amended the state statutes, adding new language allowing counties to remap eligible
lands for destination resorts not more frequently than once every thirty (30) months. Remapping is now
dependent on creating a process for collecting and processing all proposed map amendments submitted to
the county within that thirty (30) month planning period.
In order to allow destination resorts within the county, Goal 8 requires that Deschutes County adopt a
map showing which lands are available for destination resort development. The purpose of the map is to
provide greater certainty concerning destination resort siting than is available under the exceptions process.
To protect forest and farm resources, Goal 8 prescribes that certain classes of lands are off limits to
destination resort development. The final map must reflect exclusion of such areas. However, although a
property is mapped as eligible for a destination resort, a destination resort may not be permitted outright in
that location. In order to be approved, a proposal for a resort must be processed as a conditional use and
must comply with the specific standards and criteria established by the county for destination resorts.
Goal 8 and the state statute also recognize that destination resorts can have negative impacts on
neighborhoods, transportation facilities and the rural quality of life. These impacts can, however be
substantially mitigated. The County recognizes the importance of balancing protection of resource lands
and rural land uses with the economic benefits destination resorts provide. The County further recognizes
that this balance can be struck by the manner in which areas are designated as being available for destination
resort development and by establishing thorough siting criteria. In establishing these thorough siting
criteria, the County recognizes that it has the option to be more restrictive than state law in the areas it
chooses to exclude from destination resort siting through the mapping process.
PAGE 1 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
been-Nxefypositive.
OS&C, MUA 10 and RR 10 zones.
action at the state level affecting the siting of destination resorts in the forest rule adopted by LCDC in
PAGE 2 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
23.84.020. Goals.
1. To provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning
Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development,
and in a manner that will maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or
endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands.
2. To provide a process for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands that have been mapped by
Deschutes County as eligible for this purpose.
3. To provide for the siting of destination resort facilities that enhance and diversify the recreational
opportunities and economy of Deschutes County.
4. To provide for development of destination resorts consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in a
manner that will ensure the resorts are supported by adequate transportation facilities.
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
23.84.030. Policies.
1. Destination resorts shall only be allowed within areas shown on the "Deschutes County Destination
Resort Map" and when the resort complies with the requirements of Goal 8, ORS 197.435 to
197.467, and Deschutes County Code 18.113.
2. Applications to amend the map will be collected and will be processed concurrently no sooner than
30 months from the date the map was previously adopted or amended.
3. Mapping for destination resort siting.
a. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide
Planning Goals, destination resorts shall, pursuant to Goal 8, not be sited in Deschutes County
in the following areas:
1. Within 24 air miles of an urban 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;
2. On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and
mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land within a High -
Value Crop Area;
3. On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an
approved Goal exception;
4. On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan, where all
conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource protected -kg -spite -of
1 11 •
5. Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984, as further refined through
development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement:
PAGE 3 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
i. Tumalo deer winter range;
ii. Portion of the Metolius deer winter range;
iii. Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican;
6. Sites less than 160 acres.
b. To assure that resort development does not conflict with Oregon Revised Statute, destination
resorts shall not be sited in Deschutes County in Areas of Critical State Concern
c. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of Deschutes County,
destination resorts shall also not be located in the following areas:
1. Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife Combining
Zone, that the County has chosen to protect:
i. Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican;
ii. Elk Habitat Area; and
iii. Deer Winter Range;
2. Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South County
Regional Problem Solving Group;
3. Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C);
4. Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
5. Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous acres in
irrigation;
6. Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres;
7. Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries;
8. Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145;
9. Platted subdivisions;
10. Federal, State, and City lands not otherwise excluded under these policies and
23.84.030(3)(d)(6);
d. For those lands not located in any of the areas designated in (3)(a) though (c), destination
resorts may, pursuant to Goal 8, Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County zoning code, be
sited in the following areas:
1. Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR -10)
zones;
2. Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land;
3. Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation;
4. Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated
acres;
5. Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships;
6. Federal, State, or City land not otherwise excluded that becomes privately owned through
land exchanges or other disposition can be considered for destination resort siting
consistent with these policies and mapped as available for destination resort development;
e. Deschutes County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the
county. Such map shall become part of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and
shall be an overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR).
Value Crop Area;
2. On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an
PAGE 4 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
010(1));
b. In addition, destination resorts shall not be located in areas zoned EFU 320, EFU 80, OS&C
24. Ordinance provisions.
a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent land
uses through enactment of land use regulations that, at a minimum, provide for the following:
1. Maintenance of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered
species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within
100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and
2. Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or
minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects on
intensive fanning operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order to
adequately assess the effect on the transportation system, notice and the opportunity for
comment shall be provided to the relevant road authorityLocation and design of
the area.
3. Such regulations may allow for alterations to important natural features, including
placement of structures, provided that the overall values of the feature are maintained.
b. Minimum measures to assure that design and placement of improvements and activities will
avoid or minimize the adverse effects noted in Policy 5(b) shall include:
1. The establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses,
including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fenced, berms, landscaped areas, and
other similar types of buffers.
2. Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses.
c. The County may adopt additional land use restrictions to ensure that proposed destination
resorts are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the site and surrounding land uses.
d. Uses in destination resorts shall be limited to visitor- oriented accommodations, overnight
lodgings, developed recreational facilities, commercial uses limited to types and levels
necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the resort, and uses consistent with preservation and
maintenance of open space.
e. The zoning ordinance shall include measure that assure that developed recreational facilities,
visitor -oriented accommodations and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are
physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent
fmancial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developments,
developed recreational facilities and other key facilitated intended to serve a particular phase
shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding.
PAGE 5 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
,iting. Based on Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Oregon v. Deschutes Coun
23 Or
lands presently zoned for forest uses. Finally, after the County has completed a farm study
destination resort siting. The County shall complete consideration of forest lands and
d. Until the Goal 8 mapping process is complete, no application for quasi judicial plan map
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
PAGE 6 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
0-J
Exhibit A
Chapter 23.84. DESTINATION RESORTS
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
23.84.020. Goals.
23.84.030. Policies.
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
Since 1979, destination resorts have increased in importance to the economy of Deschutes County. In
1989, recognizing the importance of tourism to the economy of the State of Oregon, the state legislature and
the Land Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC") took steps to make it easier to establish
destination resorts on rural lands. Statewide Planning Goal 8, the recreation goal, was subsequently
amended to specify a process for locating destination resorts on rural land without taking an exception to
Goals 3, 11 and 14. This was followed by legislation incorporating Goal 8 into Oregon's land use statutes.
By these actions, the State of Oregon recognized destination resorts as a legitimate rural land use. Under
these changes, destination resorts may be sited in EFU zones where they were not allowed before.
Following the changes to the state regulations, because implementation of destination resort siting under
Goal 8 was optional and the county had not undertaken that implementation, the developers of Eagle Crest
applied for legislative changes in the County's comprehensive plan and implementing land use ordinances.
The Eagle Crest developers wished to expand their current resort to adjacent lands and wished to do so
without going through the exceptions process. They were able to do so when the County adopted a
destination resort overlay map. In order, Pronghorn, Caldera Springs, and Tetherow resorts have been sited
since that time. Resorts existing prior to the legislative change, such as Black Butte, Sunriver and the Inn of
the Seventh Mountain have also expanded and been rezoned to Urban Unincorporated Community and
Resort Community, respectively.
In March 1990, LCDC adopted the "forest rule." This rule allows destination resorts to be sited on
forest lands pursuant to Goal 8. The county adopted this rule for land zoned Forest Use -2. Additionally, the
legislature, in 2003, amended the state statutes, adding new language allowing counties to remap eligible
lands for destination resorts not more frequently than once every thirty (30) months. Remapping is now
dependent on creating a process for collecting and processing all proposed map amendments submitted to
the county within that thirty (30) month planning period.
In order to allow destination resorts within the county, Goal 8 requires that Deschutes County adopt a
map showing which lands are available for destination resort development. The purpose of the map is to
provide greater certainty concerning destination resort siting than is available under the exceptions process.
To protect forest and farm resources, Goal 8 prescribes that certain classes of lands are off limits to
destination resort development. The final map must reflect exclusion of such areas. However, although a
property is mapped as eligible for a destination resort, a destination resort may not be permitted outright ir
that location. In order to be approved, a proposal for a resort must be processed as a conditional use am
must comply with the specific standards and criteria established by the county for destination resorts.
Goal 8 and the state statute also recognize that destination resorts can have negative impacts or
neighborhoods, transportation facilities and the rural quality of life. These impacts can, however be
substantially mitigated. The County recognizes the importance of balancing protection of resource lan&.
and rural land uses with the economic benefits destination resorts provide. The County further recognize!,
that this balance can be struck by the manner in which areas are designated as being available for destination
resort development and by establishing thorough siting criteria. In establishing these thorough sitinl.
criteria, the County recognizes that it has the option to be more restrictive than state law in the areas i
chooses to exclude from destination resort siting through the mapping process.
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
PAGE 1 OF 4 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
23.84.020. Goals.
1. To provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning
Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development,
and in a manner that will maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or
endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands.
2. To provide a process for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands that have been mapped by
Deschutes County as eligible for this purpose.
3. To provide for the siting of destination resort facilities that enhance and diversify the recreational
opportunities and economy of Deschutes County.
4. To provide for development of destination resorts consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in a
manner that will ensure the resorts are supported by adequate transportation facilities.
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
23.84.030. Policies.
1. Destination resorts shall only be allowed within areas shown on the "Deschutes County Destination
Resort Map" and when the resort complies with the requirements of Goal 8, ORS 197.435 to
197.467, and Deschutes County Code 18.113.
2. Applications to amend the map will be collected and will be processed concurrently no sooner than
30 months from the date the map was previously adopted or amended.
3. Mapping for destination resort siting.
a. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide
Planning Goals, destination resorts shall, pursuant to Goal 8, not be sited in Deschutes County
in the following areas:
1. Within 24 air miles of an urban 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;
2. On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and
mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land within a High -
Value Crop Area;
3. On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an
approved Goal exception;
4. On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan, where all
conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource;
5. Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984, as further refined through
development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement:
i. Tumalo deer winter range;
ii. Portion of the Metolius deer winter range;
iii. Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican;
6. Sites less than 160 acres.
b. To assure that resort development does not conflict with Oregon Revised Statute, destination
resorts shall not be sited in Deschutes County in Areas of Critical State Concern
c. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of Deschutes County,
destination resorts shall also not be located in the following areas:
1. Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife Combining
Zone, that the County has chosen to protect:
i. Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican;
ii. Elk Habitat Area; and
iii. Deer Winter Range;
PAGE 2 OF 4 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
2. Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South County
Regional Problem Solving Group;
3. Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C);
4. Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
5. Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous acres in
irrigation;
6. Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres;
7. Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries;
8. Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145;
9. Platted subdivisions;
10. Federal, State, and City lands not otherwise excluded under these policies and
23.84.030(3)(d)(6);
d. For those lands not located in any of the areas designated in (3)(a) though (c), destination
resorts may, pursuant to Goal 8, Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County zoning code, be
sited in the following areas:
1. Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR -10)
zones;
2. Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land;
3. Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation;
4. Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated
acres;
5. Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships;
6. Federal, State, or City land not otherwise excluded that becomes privately owned through
land exchanges or other disposition can be considered for destination resort siting
consistent with these policies and mapped as available for destination resort development;
e. Deschutes County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the
county. Such map shall become part of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and
shall be an overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR).
4. Ordinance provisions.
a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent land
uses through enactment of land use regulations that, at a minimum, provide for the following:
1. Maintenance of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered
species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within
100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and
2. Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or
minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects or
intensive fanning operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order tc
adequately assess the effect on the transportation system, notice and the opportunity for
comment shall be provided to the relevant road authority.
3. Such regulations may allow for alterations to important natural features, including
placement of structures, provided that the overall values of the feature are maintained.
b. Minimum measures to assure that design and placement of improvements and activities wil
avoid or minimize the adverse effects noted in Policy 5(b) shall include:
1. The establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses.
including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fenced, berms, landscaped areas, ants
other similar types of buffers.
2. Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses.
c. The County may adopt additional land use restrictions to ensure that proposed destination
resorts are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the site and surrounding land uses
d. Uses in destination resorts shall be limited to visitor- oriented accommodations, overnigh
lodgings, developed recreational facilities, commercial uses limited to types and level ;
PAGE 3 OF 4 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the resort, and uses consistent with preservation and
maintenance of open space.
e. The zoning ordinance shall include measure that assure that developed recreational facilities,
visitor -oriented accommodations and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are
physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent
financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developments,
developed recreational facilities and other key facilitated intended to serve a particular phase
shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding.
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
PAGE 4 OF 4 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (1/13/10)
FINDINGS
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) held a public hearing on January 13,
2010 on Ordinance Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 to consider legislative plan amendments to
Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapters 22.23 and 23.84.1 The Board closed the hearing on x.
On x, the Board chair conducted the first and second reading by title only and adopted the
ordinance, declaring it an emergency.
BACKGROUND
Initiated by staff at the request of the Board and further modified by the Deschutes County
Planning Commission, Plan Amendment 2009-3 and Text Amendment 2009-9 encompassed in
Ordinances Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 create a process and criteria the County will follow to
change its destination resort map. The two ordinances modify DCC Chapter 23.84, Destination
Resort Goals and Policies, and DCC Chapter 22.23, Destination Resort Map Amendment
Procedures by:
• Listing clear and objective mapping criteria for areas that are ineligible for siting destination
resorts;
• Listing clear and objective mapping criteria for areas that are eligible for siting destination
resorts; and,
• Describing the process for amending Deschutes County's Destination Resort Map.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Staff proposed text amendments that create a process and criteria the County will follow to
change its destination resort map. The proposed text amendments are outlined in the attached
exhibits and underlined for new language and shown as stf+ket#reugh for deleted language.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Planning Commission on December 2 closed the public hearing,
deliberated and recommended that the Board adopt the above referenced ordinances, with the
following refinements included in the recommendations:
A. A deadline, to be determined by the Board for submitting map amendment applications.
B. A grandfather clause allowing existing mapped properties to remain on the map
regardless if they do not qualify under the new, 2010 eligibility criteria. The clause, which
has the same deadline as map amendment applications (see A above) requires property
owners to submit a written request specifying that they want the existing resort
designation to remain. The grandfathered designation will expire however, for those that
fail to submit a request by the established deadline.
1 A tax bill insert, complying with Ballot Measure 56 announced the first evidentiary hearing with the
planning commission on November 19, 2009. It was distributed in mid-October to all property owners in
Deschutes County. The Board hearing was noticed as required in DCC 22.12.020.
Page 1 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
C. Applicants adding properties to the map must demonstrate consistency with the
Transportation Planning Rule, Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0060.2
D. Text further clarifying Deschutes County's acknowledged Goal 5, Natural Resources,
Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces program in relationship to the siting of
destination resorts.
E. Multiple property owners that are contiguous and total 160 acres or greater become
eligible for adding lands to the destination resort map.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Two ordinances, Ordinance No. 2010-001 and 2010-002 are adopted. Both create a process
and criteria Deschutes County will follow to change its destination resort map. The plan
amendment embodied in Ordinance No. 2010-001 relates to eligibility criteria, and 2010-002 to
map amendment procedures. Deschutes County Tacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or
23 for reviewing a legislative plan amendment. Nonetheless, because this is a Deschutes
County initiated plan amendment, the County bears the responsibility for justifying that the
amendments are consistent with the statewide planning goals and Deschutes County's
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS
1. Statewide Planning Goals.
The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate factual
base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide Goal 1, Citizen
Involvement, Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Goal 8, Recreation, Goal 12, Transportation, Oregon
Revised Statute (ORS), case law, and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The following
findings demonstrate that the two ordinances comply with applicable statewide planning goals
and state law. Statewide Goal 1 was met through this adoption process because these
amendments had two public hearings, one before the County Planning Commission, the
County's citizen review board for land use matters, and one before the Board. Goal 2 was met
because ORS 197.455(2) allows for such an amendment process and these new code
provisions will be the framework for all future decisions on where to allow destination resorts in
this county. Additionally, the amendments mirror the statutory requirements that destination
resorts not be sited on specific types of farm and forest land, Open Space and Conservation
zoned land, and in areas where wildlife is protected. Thus, the provisions will not conflict with
Goals 3 through 5.
As for the County's Goal 5 historic resources, the County's regulations already require
preservation of those sites regardless of the use proposed for any given property. As for Goals
6 and 7, the County has other code provisions in the destination resort zoning code, DCC
Chapter 18.113 that are designed to protect the air, water and land resources quality and to
assure that they are not approved in areas subject to natural resources and natural hazards.
Goal 8 specifies the rural areas consisting of agricultural, forest, rural development, and natural
resources that are eligible for siting destination resorts.3 Lastly, according to the
2 http://www.publications.oid.state.or.us/A142351.htm. This change complies with new case law,
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene and Goodpasture Partners, LLC, issued by the Oregon Court of
Appeals on November 18, 2009.
3 http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal8.pdf
Page 2 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
Comprehensive Plan, the numerous beneficial impacts of destination resorts are recognized by
Statewide Planning Goal 8 and by implementing statutes. The new provisions comply with Goal
9 as they will expand the opportunities for more destination resorts, which are a source of
economic development by providing jobs in the construction and service industries. In fact, as
described in the findings below, the initial reason decades ago the legislature allowed
destination resorts in rural areas was to provide a means of economic development particularly
in areas such as Central Oregon where farm and forest lands were not as productive as other
areas in the state. Although the County is generally not subject to Goal 10, these destination
resorts do provide additional housing, albeit, generally higher end housing. Goal 11 is not
applicable to destination resorts because destination resorts are specifically allowed urban -type
services such as sewer and water. New case law pertaining to Goal 12 requires a map
amendment to demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Plan Rule. Refer to Footnotes
#2 and #10 for more context.
Goal 13 is also addressed through the destination resort zoning code, DCC Chapter 18.113.
This specific chapter requires destination resorts during the conceptual master plan (CMP)
process to prepare utility and water conservation plans.4 Furthermore, the planning director or
hearings body during the CMP process must find that the minimum dimensional standards are
adequate to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan relating to solar access (DCC
18.113.060(G)(1)). Goal 14 is not applicable to destination resort map amendments because,
while destination resorts are built and operated much like an urban area could be, they are
specifically allowed in rural areas with some additional requirements. Goals 15 through 19 are
not applicable to any amendments to the County's comprehensive plan because the county has
none of those types of lands. The eighth finding below further substantiates that the text
amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Destination Resort Map Amendment / Oregon Revised Statute
Originally, an acknowledged destination resort map could only be amended during a state
periodic review process. Deschutes County started its periodic review in 1988 and completed it
on January 23, 2003. In 2003, the Oregon Legislature amended ORS 197.629(3) exempting
counties from periodic review, excluding portions of its population within the urban growth
boundary (UGB) of a city. New language was added to ORS 197.455(2) in that same session
allowing counties to remap, not more frequently than once every thirty (30) months.5
Remapping is now dependent on creating a process for collecting and processing all map
amendments made within a thirty (30) month planning period.
3. Destination Resorts / Statewide Provisions
Initially, destination resorts were not allowed on rural lands in Oregon without an "exception" to
the statewide planning goals that limit development on farm or forest land. However, several
large resort developments preceded the statewide land use planning system, including Black
Butte, Sunriver, and Inn of 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek. In 1981, Governor Atiyeh's Task Force on
Land Use Planning recommended that destination resorts be allowed as an economic
development tool in rural areas, with certain sideboards to limit their effects and ensure that
their main focus would be overnight lodging rather than second home development. The
provisions authorizing the siting of destination resorts outside UGBs without taking exceptions to
statewide planning goals were adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) in 1984 as amendments to Statewide Planning Goal 8. However, in 1987
4 DCC 18.113.050(6)(5) and (11c)
5 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/197.html
Page 3 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
the entire content of Goal 8 was added to state law (ORS 197.435 — 197.465), at the request of
destination resort interests.6
4. Deschutes County Destination Resort Chapter
A destination resort chapter was added to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan in 1992
at the request of Eagle Crest Resort.' Table 1 lists the mapping criteria used by the County to
determine resort eligibility. Under state law, destination resorts are only allowed on a county's
destination resort map. As demonstrated in Table 1, the County supplemented the state's
criteria by excluding large agricultural and forest parcels, and resource lands within one mile of
a UGB.8 The mapping was done in a phased sequence, based on pending farm and forest
studies. Additionally, as a result of a court case, lands within three miles of the county border
were also excluded since most of the lands in Jefferson and Crook counties had not yet been
evaluated. At that time, it could not be demonstrated they contained high value crop areas
excluded by Statewide Planning Goal 8 and ORS. If a property was not excluded from the map
by state or county criteria, it was automatically designated beginning in 1992 on Deschutes
County's Destination Resort overlay map.
Table 1 — Deschutes County Destination Resort Map Criteria (1992)
Agency
Criteria
Excluded Lands
•
Within 24 air miles of UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more
unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and
management of the resort.
•
On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland
identified and mapped by the United States Natural Resources
Conservation Service, or its predecessor agency.
State of Oregon s
•
•
On a site within 3 miles of a high value crop area unless the resort
complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the
resort may not be closer to a high value crop area than'/ - mile for each
25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof.
•
On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as determined
by the State Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved
goal exception.
•
In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by Oregon
Department of Fish & Wildlife in July 1984 or as designated in
acknowledged comprehensive plan.
6 Agenda Item 4, October 15, 2008 LCDC Meeting - Informational Briefing and Public Hearing Regarding
Destination Resorts.
' http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title23/docs/chapter%2023.84.doc
8 Destination Resort Legislative History: Ordinance Nos. 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, 92-029, 92-030, 92-031,
92-032, 93-029, 93-030, 93-031, and 2001-019.
9 See footnote #5. ORS 197.435 to 197.467
Page 4 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
Today, there are 112,448 acres in Deschutes County mapped for destination resorts. A vast
majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are irreversibly committed to
platted subdivisions, rural residential development or small Tots. Notable statistics include:
• 10% of mapped area (10,931 acres) is developed or planned as a destination resort or
resort community (Sunriver, Black Butte, Inn of 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek); and,
• 54% of mapped area (60,175 acres) contains properties Tess than 160 acres, including
several platted subdivisions.
5. Ordinance 2010-001 / Destination Resort Goals and Policies
Ordinance 2010-001 amends the Comprehensive Plan, DCC Chapter 23.84, to include new
goals and policies that describe the areas that are eligible and ineligible for siting a destination
resort. The criteria noted in Table 2 demonstrates that the new provisions provide clear and
objective mapping criteria.
///
Page 5 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
Excluded ands
•
All resource (farm and forest) lands within one mile of a UGB.
•
Irrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands greater than 40 acres of
contiguous irrigation under one ownership.
•
Irrigated EFU lands greater than 60 acres of non-contiguous land in the
same ownership.
•
All Forest Use 1(F-1) zoned property.
•
Wildlife: a) Tumalo & Metolius deer winter range; b) antelope winter range
Deschutes
east of Bend; c) antelope winter range near Millican; d) elk range; e) sage
County
grouse range.
Included` L.ands
•
Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural
Residential (RR -10) zones.
•
Unirrigated EFU lands.
•
Irrigated EFU lands Tess than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one
ownership.
•
Irrigated EFU lands with 60 acres or less of non-contiguous land in the
same ownership.
Today, there are 112,448 acres in Deschutes County mapped for destination resorts. A vast
majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are irreversibly committed to
platted subdivisions, rural residential development or small Tots. Notable statistics include:
• 10% of mapped area (10,931 acres) is developed or planned as a destination resort or
resort community (Sunriver, Black Butte, Inn of 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek); and,
• 54% of mapped area (60,175 acres) contains properties Tess than 160 acres, including
several platted subdivisions.
5. Ordinance 2010-001 / Destination Resort Goals and Policies
Ordinance 2010-001 amends the Comprehensive Plan, DCC Chapter 23.84, to include new
goals and policies that describe the areas that are eligible and ineligible for siting a destination
resort. The criteria noted in Table 2 demonstrates that the new provisions provide clear and
objective mapping criteria.
///
Page 5 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
Table 2 - Map Eligibility Criteria
State of Oregon
Ineligible Lands
Destination resorts shall not be sited in Deschutes County in the following areas:
• Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of
100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff
and management of the resort;
• On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified
and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land
within a High -Value Crop Area;
• On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to
an approved Goal exception;
• On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan,
where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource
• In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by ODFW in July
1984 or designated in an acknowledged Comp Plan.
i. Tumalo deer winter range;
ii. Portion of the Metolius deer winter range;
iii. Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican
• Sites less than 160 acres
• Areas of Critical State Concern.
Deschutes County
• Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife
Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect:
i. Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican;
ii. Elk Habitat Area; and
iii. Deer Winter Range
• Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South
County Regional Problem Solving Group;
• Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C);
• Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
• Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous
acres in irrigation;
• Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated
acres;
• Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries;
• Lands designated Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145;
• Platted subdivisions;
• Federal, State, and City lands not otherwise excluded under these policies; however
see eligibility criterion in next section;
Page 6 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
Deschutes County
Eligible Lands.
For those lands not located in any of the areas identified as ineligible, destination
resorts may be sited in the following areas:
•
Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR -
10) zones;
•
Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land;
•
Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation;
•
Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60
irrigated acres;
•
Federal, State, or City land not otherwise excluded that becomes privately owned
through land exchanges or other disposition can be considered for destination resort
siting consistent with these policies and mapped as available for destination resort
development.
Parcel Size
•
Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships
6. Ordinance 2010-002 / Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures
Ordinance 2010-002 amends the County's procedural code, DCC Chapter 22.23, to include new
destination resort map amendment procedures, summarized in Table 3, that describe the
process for submitting a map amendment application.
Table 3 - Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures
Procedures
The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility
map") may be amended as follows:
• All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than
once every 30 months.
• The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be a date acceptable
to the Board.
• Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a),
23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d) will remain on the eligibility map if
property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County Community Development
Department on an authorized county form by the deadline cited in DCC 22.23.010(B) to remain
eligible.
• In addition to any other county code provision regarding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the
next 30 -month period for amendments to the eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish a
notice announcing opportunities for property owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility
map.
• Property owners must file applications for an eligibility map amendment prior to the last day of
the 30 -month period by 5:00 p.m.
• Any additional applications filed after the deadline in DCC 22.23.010(C) will be processed at
the end of the next 30 -month cycle.
Page 7 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
• Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be
initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall:
1. Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the
property owner as defined herein to make the application;
2. Be completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director;
3. Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of
County Commissioners;
4. Include documentation that demonstrates compliance with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a),
23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d);
5. For applications adding properties to the eligibility map, the applicant will be required to
demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660-012-0060.1°
• The planning director shall retain any applications received prior to the expiration of the 30 -
month period.
• Multiple applications shall be consolidated.
• The planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning commission or hearings
officer after the expiration of the 30 -month period.
7. Formal Map Amendments
Because ORS 197.455(2) allows destination resort map amendments only every 30 months, the
Board finds a need to establish deadlines for map amendment applications and a grandfather
clause that allows existing mapped properties to remain on the map regardless of whether they
do or do not qualify under the new, 2010 eligibility criteria.
Thus, the new provisions in DCC 22.23.010(B) and (C) state:
• (B). The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be x.
• (C). Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC
23.84.030(3)(a), 23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d) will remain on the
eligibility map if property owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County
Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the deadline
cited in DCC 22.23.010(B) to remain eligible.
8. Consistency with Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Deschutes County's Destination Resort Goal, DCC 23.84.020, provides for development of
destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that will
be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that will
maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or endangered species,
streams, rivers and significant wetlands. As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and cited in
Ordinance 2010-001, Exhibit A, Deschutes County's proposed eligibility criteria continue to
protect certain agricultural and forest lands, and acknowledged Goal 5 natural resources. As
10 See note 2. Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene and Goodpasture Partners, LLC, issued by the
Oregon Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009 requires a local plan amendment to demonstrate
consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule. Deschutes County
fulfills this obligation as cited in Table 3 above and specifically, Ordinance No. 2010-002, Exhibit A, DCC
22.23.010(G)(5).
Page 8 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
discussed above, these new provisions were designed to comply with the statewide planning
goals. Therefore, because the County's comprehensive plan was adopted to comply with those
goals and had been acknowledged as such, the new provisions also comply with the County's
comprehensive plan policies and goals, which are rarely more restrictive than the statewide
planning goals.
Additionally, Ordinance 2010-002, Exhibit A, proposes a grandfathered clause for existing
mapped properties to remain on the map regardless if they do not qualify under the new, 2010
eligibility criteria. Even these grandfathered properties, if so chosen to remain mapped, are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing destination resort map is
acknowledged by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. " Map
amendments represent only the first of several steps for a property to become entitled and
developed as a destination resort. The Deschutes County Destination Resort Combining Zone,
DCC 18.113 specifies an extensive burden of proof for an applicant seeking conceptual master
plan as well as final master plan approval. That chapter was found years ago to be in
compliance with the County's comprehensive plan and, as stated above, provides many of the
protections required by the County's Comprehensive Plan policies.
11 See Finding #2, page 3.
Page 9 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHU OUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Adding Deschutes County Code Title
22, Deschutes County Development Procedures,
Adopting Destination Resort Map Amendment
Procedures, and Declaring an Emergency.
*
*
ORDINANC . 2010-002
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("B °-�� ' d� e� , aff to initiate .plan amendment
to adopt map amendment procedures for destination resort remapp
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County ° 'ng Commission duly noticed pubic hearing on
November 19, 2009, and on December 2, 2009 o ion Resort Proc
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Pla
n on Fecember 2, 2009 forwarded a
recommendation to the Board to adopt the Destinatio'
WHEREAS, the B> e • : noticed pub ; hearing on anuary 13, 2010; and
h �z,
WHEREAS,e : Minds it,� the public inte adopt the Destination Resort Procedures; i pow,
therefore,
T
as follow
S OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDA INS
22.23,tination Resort Map Amendment Procedures, is hereby added to
read as des j in Exhibit "A" ched h v eto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section DINGS. Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B" attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-002 (1/13/10)
Section 3 EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Dated this of
ATTEST:
, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHLITES COUNTY, OREGON
Recording Secretary
Date of 1st Reading: day of
Date of 2nd Reading: day of
Commissioner
Record of Ado s ' • s Vote
Y • bstainedsed
Tammy Baney
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
, Chair
V'ce air
oner
, 2010.
Effective , � , 2010.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-002 (1/13/10)
Exhibit A
Chapter 22.23. DESTINATION RESORT MAP AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
22.23.010. Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures.
The existing comprehensive plan map of sites eligible for destination resorts ("eligibility map") may be
amended as follows:
A. All amendments to the eligibility map shall be processed simultaneously and no more than once every
30 months.
B. The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall be 4 date acceptable to the
Boardiptl.
C. Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a),
23.84.030(3)(b), 23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d) will remain on the eligibility map if property
owners file a formal request with the Deschutes County Community Development Department on an
authorized county form by the deadline cited in DCC 22.23.010(B) to remain eligible.
D. In addition to any other county code provision regarding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the next 30 -
month period for amendments to the eligibility map, Deschutes County shall publish a notice
announcing opportunities for property owners to apply for an amendment to the eligibility map.
E. 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.
F. Any additional applications filed after the deadline in DCC 22.23.010(C) will be processed at the end 01
the next 30 -month cycle.
G. Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may be initiated b)
the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall:
1. Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the propert)
owner as defined herein to make the application;
2. Be completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director;
3. Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of Count
Commissioners;
4. Include documentation that demonstrates compliance with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a), 23.84.030(3)(b).
23.84.030(3)(c) and 23.84.030(3)(d);
5. For applications adding properties to the eligibility map, the applicant will be required to
o
demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule at OAR 660-012-0060.
H. The planning director shall retain any applications received prior to the expiration of the 30-montl
period.
I. Multiple applications shall be consolidated.
J. The planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning commission or hearings office
after the expiration of the 30 -month period.
(Ord. 2010-002 §1, 2010)
PAGE 1 OF 1 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-002 (1//13/10)