HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances 001-002 - Destination Resort MappingDeschutes County Board of Commissioner;
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-19611
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of May 26, 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 destination
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.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUT
An Ordinance Amending Title 23, the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan, Adopting
Destination Resort Remapping Goals and
Policies, and Declaring an Emergency.
*
*
*
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commission
to adopt goals and policies for destination resort remapping; a
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commissi
November 19, 2009, and on December 2, 200 • e proposed Destini
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County
recommendation to the Board to adopt the propose
WHEREAS, the Boar• duly noticed pearings
19, 2010; and
WHEREAS,
now, therefore,
THE
as follows.
.
Exhibit "
language to b
INAN 2010-001
d staff to initiate ` amendment
d a duly noticed pubic hearing on
esort Goals and Policies; and
on ber 2, 2009 forwarded a
Goals}"' d Policies; and
uary 20, March 1, April 5, and April
he public inter to..dopt the Destination Resort Goals and Policies;
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
.84, Destination Resorts, is amended to read as described in
Terence incorporated herein, with new language underlined acid
Section 2. SINGS . e Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated 1 i
reference herein.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-001 (5/24/10)
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 , 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Recording Secretary
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2010.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of
Commissioner
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Ye Abstained
Tammy Baney
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
Effective , 2010
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-001 (5/24/10)
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
l 989, 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 Tctherow resorts have been sited
since that time. Resorts existing prior to the legislative change, such as Black Butte, Sunriver and the lnn 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 he approved, a proposal for a resort muss he 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.
(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 (5/24/1 0)
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 form 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 entrance and diversify the recreational
opportunities and economy ofDeschulcs 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 he 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 arc 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 loot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are riot 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 0) 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 cast of Bend near 1 lorsc Ridge and M illican;
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 docs not conflict with the objectives of Deschutes County,
destination resorts shall also not be located in the following areas:
1. Sites listed below that arc 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 (5!24%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. ]_,ands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
5. Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Fane Use (ETU) 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 FEU 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 he 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 compalible 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 signilicanl 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 he provided to the relevant road authority.
3. Such regulations may allow for alterations to important natural features, including
placement of structures, provided that the overall values of the feature are maintained.
b. Minimum measures to assure that design and placement of improvements and activities will
avoid or minimize the adverse effects noted in Policy 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 he limited to visitor- oriented accommodations, overnight
lodgings, developed recreational facilities, commercial uses limited to types and levels
PAGE 3 OF 4 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (5/24/10)
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 arc
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 ORDINANC'I. 2010-001 (5!24/10)
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 takin• 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 Crestdevelo�ers 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. 1.CIDC adopted the --forest rule.,_ 'Chis rule allows destination resorts to be sited on
fut_est 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
landsIbr destination resorts not more frequently than once every thirty X30) 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
neap showing which lands are available for destination resort development. The purpose of the map is to
provide Beater certainty concerning destination resort siting than is available under the exce_ions 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, althou;=lr a
property is mapped as eligible for a destination resort, a destination resort may not bepennitted outright in
that location. In order to be approved, a proposal for a resort must he processed as a conditional use and
must comply with the specific standards andcriteriaestablished 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 cnuality of life. These impacts can, however be
substantially mitigated. The County recognizes the importance of balancing_protection of resource lands
aiid rural land uses with the economic benefits destination resorts provide. The County further recognizes
that this balance can be struck by the manger 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 Inas 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 (5/24/10)
Exhibit A
The numerous -beneficial impacts of destination resorts arc reeegnised-b tewide-Rharnning-Goa-1-8'-and by
implement -Mg statutes. The -past experiences with destination resorts -in Deschutes County have generally
beenvery-positive.
The development of destination resorts can serve as an impodatit element to diversify the-ecoHe-mc base
of the County. This was recognized by the -County in the comprehensive plan adopted in -1979. U-nder the
-1-9-7-9 plan -and implementing erdinarees-desti-mation resorts are allowed as-eenditiot a1 uses in the F 2 F 3,
9S MUA 10-a
Sme-e-1-9-79-destination-resett-s4ia-ve increased in importance -to the economy o Deschutes County. A
new resod, knoww-as Eagle Crest has been sited since that time. Existing resorts, such} as Sunr-ivcr-and he
Inn of the S- • - • -, .tided. Tourism in general has increased in importance to the Oregon
economy, particularly as the -timber industry has gone into decline.
Reeegnni-zing-the-in .: - . .. m to the economy of the State of Oregon, the state legislature -and
LCDC haw:n rural lands in the state.
Statewide Planning Goal 8, the recreation goal, was amended to specify a process for locating-destiitation
- .. • ' _ . - . '. - overn development in
rural resource lands. This was followed by legislation incorporating Goal 8 into Oregon's land use statutes.
By --these actions, the -State of Oregon recognized destination resorts as a legitimate rural land use. Under
these-ehannges-festination resorts may be site - - - - re. anther
action -at -the -state level-a-f#eet-i - the siting of-destination-feserts in- - :. ed by LCDC in
Mar -eh -1 -9 -90, --This rule allows destination resorts to be sited on forest lands pursuant to Goal 8.
"The County-n=eeegnizcs that the siting -of destination resorts would be -severely -limited -if -such
developments were not al -lo ved in farm -and -forest zones.
P
Implementation of destination resort -siting under.:. : .. .. The -Goal 8 legislative -process in
Deschutes Ceunty-was-prompted by an application -by -the -owners of Eale-Cfest-fer--legislative-eh ages in
t -he -County comprehensive -plan and implementing land -use -ordinances. -The-Eagle Crest owners wished -to
e-panel-the+reurrerrt-destination-resort-onto adtacent-lands--and-wished to -do -so without going -through -the
except -ions prociessv
Goal 8 -requires -that -the -County -adept a map -showing -which lands- in the County -are -available -for
destination --resort developrnent-- The purpose of the map is--te-provide- greater eertfrint concenung
destination -resod ---sii-ing.-than-i:;-evadable-under-tlle-exeeptions-pr-oeess---4-o-protest-forest and farm reseuree
Goat -8 presi=rii es thiat--cents+in Biasses -of -lands -a -re -off limits- to --destination -resort development--- The -Cm -al
n -al
map must reflect erg-elusion-Hf-ueh area.;. A detailed description of the mapping -process engaged in by the
County is teund in the 4 esotrreeClement- lithe-eompretiens-we-plan.
Goal-aiid--tl slate -statute - -also -reeob ize that -destination -r-esort-s--ean have-tiegati-ve-innpacts en
neigl bed l od-s aril the rival quality of lie-- Ihese impacts can -he substantially rni£ib rted-hcweven- l be
('aunty nese-gnizes-- he--impo-rtanee of -anal -arc=ing proteetieu-rneehanismns-- o €sourer Mads_a-nd--r-wa-I---land
uses -with in-e-ee=onomi&benefits- lestiItation resei4s provi. -. - - -gndes that this-ba-lanee
019 -he struck -by the -manner in which areas are designated -as -being available for destination -resod
development and by -developing ha-!-ar editing criteria:
"Fie-County-reeegnomes-th; -it-hast-he-eption-to--be more restrictive -than state -la v in the areas -t c -hooses to
e-xcludc Irem-n-destination resort siting-threuglrthe-mapping process.
he Board--e-{-'eunty emmissioners- has determined that it should proceed -to -implement Goal 8 -in a
Hifi +aFief -Ben-sisteat with Goal 8 and -state la.. .. . ... -. destination- resofts-t0`apply for
apprevab-Because-of the 11 ounty's need as part of periodic review to update its comprehensive plan and
ordinances-to--implement-the forest -ruts and -to -study current - farm ses ins tie -County, it is appropriate to
implement--Goal-z8 -in- a-- phased -Iasi-icon-- ceefdfngly,-die- runty- has -first -eons idered-siting-lest+ration
resorts en -the following EFU lands net excluded by -Goal 8: (1 - - - ,143
ownership havii • . • • . - _• , . . {3) irrigated-EFU
lands haying -60 - - f non
County's -implement -alien -of the best --rule, the --County will consider development of destination resorts on
PAGF 2 OF 6 EXI III3IT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (5/24/10)
Exhibit A
forest lands. Third, follov�ng-a-Feview-etc County Is -f; - . le per -iodic review- woeess--the
fano---ands-not c nsidered-for-test-inatien-resorts in the first stage--ill-be considered:
Netwithstandin +he -phased -aper r to destination- resort aon-i-ng; it-is-appreprin-te to develop --siting
standards for destination resorts generally. If further refinements are needed when forest lands and late
lands -not considered in the -first mapping phase are considered, such refinements can be made at the -time.
(Ord. 2010-001 § 1,, 201 D 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.
To -aide for-developrnent-ef destination reserts in the County consistent with Statewide -Planning Goa -1--8
in a manner-that-will-be-cern-pad-We-with farm -at - .. , - isting rural development -and -m -a Manlier
that- w0-1 maintain-inlpen4-ant-naturat features, such -as -habitat -of threatened- el- endangered-spec-res,-strerrrns
rivers -and signifie-ant-wet-ands,
(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 onlybe allowed within areas shown on the "Deschutes County Destination
Rcsoi l Map" When the resort coniplieswith the requirements of Goal 8, ORS 197.435 to
197.4407. and Deschutes County Coda 18.113.
2. Applications to amend the map will be collected and will be _processed concurrently no sooner than
30 months Ilrom the date the map_was previously adopted or amended.
Mapping tOr destination resort siting.
a_ To aspic that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide
Planning Goals destination resorts shall, pursuant to Goal knot be sited in Deschutes County
iu the following areas:
1_. Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing _population of 100.000 or
nage unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of
lltc resort,
2. On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of un)ue or prime farm land identified and
mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of fans land within a Th.gh-
ValueC'rop Area;
3.
On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an
approved Goal exc/ ption:
4. On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan, where all
conflictinguses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource protected in spite -of
identified conflicting -uses -(3A" sites designed-pur • - - • ' . 1-6-010(1-)-);
5. Especially sensitive bi 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 DP 6 LXI11B1"I "A" TO ORDINANCE. 2010-001 (5/24/10)
Exhibit A
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 Priorit Area identified on the 1999 ODFW ma • submitted to the South County
R gional 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)(40(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 zcming code; be
sited in the following areas:
1. Forest Use 2(I -2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA_ 10) and RuralKesidential (RR -10)
zones:
2. Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)_Iand;
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 gleater under one or multiple ownerships:
6. Federal, Slate, or City land not otherwise excluded that becomes privately owned through
land exchanges or other disposition can be considered lbr destination resort siting
consistent with these policies and mapped as available for destination resort development;
c. Deschutes County_shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts -can he located in the
county. Such map shall become part of the Comprehensive Plan and ZoningOrdinance and
shall be an overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR).
A4rg=-{or destination resort siting.
-To assure that resort development does not conflict with the ohieetives of other Statewide
Planning -Goals, destination resorts-sl-rafl pursuant-to--Goal-S net -he sited- in Deschutes -County m
the fallowing area
a . -On--a site- with 50 -er- _ • .. . of -rxi florme Tarin land #entified -ane
mapped by the Soil Conservation S
Value Crop Area;
2: -On -predominantly Cubie—Foot Site Class 1 or gest lam which are net -subject to ar
approved -Goal -exception
PAGE 4 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (5/24/10)
Exhibit A
3.-On--tareas-pretee Goal 5 resources iii--aanzaek1 e- 4edgec-compfel�er e -plan protected
ftp -spite -of identified conflicting --uses F113A' sites-flesign-aced pursuant to- OAR (-€0 1-6
}(l));
eral -y--nipped by the-Oregon-Dcpartment of
Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 and as further-re#ncd through-elopment of
comprehen - - ting this requirement
b,--1—n--addition, destination resorts shall not be located in areas zoned -F-144 320, EFU 80, OS&C
and->=-1-{-as-designated pursuant- to-the-implementati th forest rule by -Ordinance -9-2 016)
or-orrr-esource lands -within -one -mile outside -of urban growth -boundaries.
c. Federal lands not otherwise excluded under these policies shall not -be ma
- . e +, e,.,,
• �cc-rrinha� bvcvPrlcs privately -owned through -land
exehanges or other federal disposi-tion-can be considered for destination -resort -siting consistent
vailab - . nt:
d. The County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the County.
Such map shall bccome part of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and shall be an
overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR).
24. Ordinance provisions.
a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent land
uses through enactment of land use regulations that, at a minimum, provide for the following:
1. Maintenance of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered
species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within
100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and
2. Location and design of improvements and activities m 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 authoritykoe-ation—and-design of
improvements and-aetivities-in--a Inner that- vvi11 avoid -or minimi-ze-adverseeffeets-of-he
resort on -uses on- surrounding lnu4 partieulftr-}y-effects on intensive-Ih nm operations -in
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 . 1 he establishment and maintenance of butlers 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
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.
3. -P - - mentation. The County shall -implement -Goal 8 in a phased sequence avows:
PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT "A" TO OKDINANCE 2010-001 (5/24/10)
Exhibit A
a. The County shall adopt a zoning -ordinance ineluding all provisions required -by -Goal 8.
13: The -County shall identify countywide -any lands -excluded- by Goal--fr-oin destination resort
sit nig. Be -: : - volt -sib -1e Land -Use m Oregon v. Desehtnes Cannt: 23 Or
LUBA 476, affirmed, 15 Or App 621 (1991), land-withirtnirec miles of the county border shall
be excluded under Goal 8 countywide at this tinge- The exclusion will -be reconsidered when
land located in adjoining counties and within three miles of Deschutes County has been
inventoried to determine whether any of that land constitutes high value
adeq - . 3d in -Deschutes County -is -within three miles of -a high
value crop -area located -in -a -neighboring eeun1y
c. The County shall map lands available for destine
County shall first consider unirrigated ETU --lands and irrigated -EF lan
acres of .. -s of non contiguous land in the same ownership
where such lands are not otherwise excluded fr
and Goal 8. Next, as the county proceeds to implement the Goal 4 forest land rule as part of
periodic review, the County shall consider to what extent destination resorts may be sited on
lands presently zoned for forest uses. Finally, after the County has completed a farm study
pursuant to periodic review, the County shall consider to what extent destination resorts may be
sited on EFU lands not considered during -he first phase-o-4ffiplementation of Goal 8.
As to thos- • • irst-phase a€-desti-natien-resort mapping and net
otherwise excluded by Goal 8 and Policies 2 and 3 herein, nothing in these policies shall affect
the County's consideration in the future -as to whether such lands -should be mad
destiny _ : Ay shall -complete consideration of forest lands and
r-en±i ni-• for destination resort siting in conjunetion-with-periodic review.
As successive phases -of the destination -resort process are -taken up by the County, the county
ents-to-the-eomprehens-i-ve plan -arid zoning -maps to -add -additional -areas to
the -destination resort map.
eL Un -til the € al-8-nom-ng-prf s-is-eninple#e- no application for quay judicial plan map
changes -and -zone changes to -app] -y --to DR -zone to n-eas not -les 9-3nted-tandem Goa} --process
shall be aeeepted,-unless such -applications -are filed through the -Goal 2 exceptions -process.
(Ord. 20] 0-001 §1. 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 § ] , 2000; ()rd. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 92-
020, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
PAGE 6 OF 6 -- EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001 (5/24/10)
FINDINGS
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) held public hearings on January 20,
March 1, April 5, and April 19, 2010 on Ordinance Nos. 2010-001 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 to oral testimony, but left the written record open until Monday,
May 24, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The Board began deliberations on May 24. On x, the Board
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 st ll ethreugh 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.
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 lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or
23 for reviewing a legislative plan amendment. Nonetheless, because this is a Deschutes
County initiated plan amendment, the County bears the responsibility for justifying that the
amendments are consistent with the statewide planning goals and Deschutes County's
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS
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.' Lastly, according to the
2 http://www.publications.ojd.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/qoals/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.'
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 "exceptionto
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
DCC 18.113.050(B)(5) and (11c)
5 http://www.leq.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
ExcludedrLands
•
Within 24 air miles of UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more
unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and
management of the resort.
•
On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland
identified and mapped by the United States Natural Resources
Conservation Service, or its predecessor agency.
•
On a site within 3 miles of a high value crop area unless the resort
State of Oregon s
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
Deschutes
County
Excluded Lands
• All resource (farm and forest) lands within one mile of a UGB.
• Irrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands greater than 40 acres of
contiguous irrigation under one ownership.
• Irrigated EFU lands greater than 60 acres of non-contiguous land in the
same ownership.
• All Forest Use 1(F-1) zoned property.
• Wildlife: a) Tumalo & Metolius deer winter range; b) antelope winter range
east of Bend; c) antelope winter range near Millican; d) elk range; e) sage
grouse range.
• Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural
Residential (RR -10) zones.
• Unirrigated EFU lands.
• Irrigated EFU lands less than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one
ownership.
• Irrigated EFU lands with 60 acres or less of non-contiguous land in the
same ownership.
Today, there are 112,448 acres in Deschutes County mapped for destination resorts. A vast
majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are irreversibly committed to
platted subdivisions, rural residential development or small lots. Notable statistics include:
• 10% of mapped area (10,931 acres) is developed or planned as a destination resort or
resort community (Sunriver, Black Butte, Inn of 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek); and,
• 54% of mapped area (60,175 acres) contains properties less than 160 acres, including
several platted subdivisions.
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 Llrban 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.
• 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 660-012-0060.10
• 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.11 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 Cornprehensive Plan policies.
" 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 s OUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Adding Deschutes County Code Title
22, Deschutes County Development Procedures,
Adopting Destination Resort Map Amendment
Procedures, and Declaring an Emergency.
RDINANC 010-002
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("B aff to initiate ,plan amendment
to adopt map amendment procedures for destination resort remapp
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County
November 19, 2009, and on December 2, 2009 0
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Pla
recommendation to the Board to adopt the Destinatio
Commission
ion Resort Proc
duly noticed pubic hearing on
d
n on a ecember 2, 2009 forwarded a
ro
WHEREAS, the :� he y noticed pu. hearings oJanuary 20, March 1, April 5, and April
19, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Boa ds 3�ublic inter * oto adopt the Destination Resort Procedures; n ww,
therefore,
T' :OARD Ili TY"� ISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
Se
read as descri
22.23estination Resort Map Amendment Procedures, is hereby added to
hed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 2 '�a� GS e Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B" attached to Ordinance 2010-8101
and incorporated by re em.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-002 (5/24/10)
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 , 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2010.
Date of 2' Reading: day of
Commissioner
Record of Ado • .'_a_. Vote
Commissioner Y
Tammy Baney
Dennis R. Luke
Alan Unger
Effective � �� , 2010.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-002 (5/24/10)
Exhibit A
Chapter 22.23. DESTINATION RESORT MAP AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
22.23.010. Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures.
The existing comprehensive planniap of sites eligible for destination resorts ('eligibility mall )_ may h
anrcndcd as billows:
A. All amendments to the eligibility maw shall be_processed simultaneously and no more than once every
30 months.
13. The deadline for applications for the first eligibility map amendment shall he a date acceptable to the
Board.
C. Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84.030(3)(x),
23.8403001(h),_23,84030(3)(c) and 2384.0.30(3)(d) will remain 00 the eligibility mup if property
owners tile a formal request with the Deschutes County Conunumty 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 regardin. notice, 30 days prior to the end of the next 30 -
month period for amendments to the eligibility_ map, Deschutes County shall aublish 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 of
the next 30 -month cycle.
G. Applications to either remove ro•ert from or add sroperty to the eligibility map may be initiated by
the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall:
I. 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 apppriate 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)0), 23.84.030(3kb),
23.84.030(3)(e3 and 23.84.0300)(dt
5. For applications adding properties to the eligihility map. the applicant will be required to
demonstrate consistency with the Transportation P1inrgpg Rule al OAR 660-0 12 0060.
11. The planning. director shall retain any rpplications received prior to the expiration of the 30-mnth
period.
1. Multiple applications shall he consolidated,_
l
The.planning director shall schedule the hearing before the planning commission or hearings otiicer
after the expiration of the 30 -month period.
((lid. 2010-002.§1, 2010)
•
PACE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT "A TO ORDINANCE 2010-002 (5/24.'10)
Comment [pt.]: This dal ,needs to be
tinned up before the ordinal, co is adopted
or there needs to he more er tlanaiion as
In how the board indicates ie acceptable
date, e.g. by resolution.