HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 2010-001 - Dest Resort RemappingREVIEWED
{
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 hearings on January 20, March 1, April 5, and April
19, 2010;
WHEREAS, the Board closed the hearing to oral testimony, but left the written record open u ntil
Monday, May 24, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it in the public interest to adopt the Destination Resort Goals and Policies;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDA[NS
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 strikethrough.
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
Section 3.
public peace, health and
Dated this of
ATTEST:
EMERGENCY. This
safety, an emergency
,2010
Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Recording Secretary
Date of 1st Reading: 1 `" day of
Date of 2"d Reading:
day of
Record of Adoption Vdte
Commissioner Yes No Abstained
Tammy Baney G '_
Dermis R. Luke
Alan Unger ( f
Effective date: ) day of
r , 2010.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ai,vt. 664
ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair
, 2010.
2010.
Excused
Y, Co Toner
Chapter 23.84. DESTINATION RESORTS
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
23.84.020. Goals.
23.84.030. Policies.
23.84.010. Destination Resorts.
The numerous beneficial impacts of destination resorts are recognized by Statewide Planning Goal 8 and by
implementing statutes. The past experiences with destination resorts in Deschutes County have generally
been very positive.
OS&C, MUA 10 and R ' n 'ene
Since 1979 destination resorts have increased in importance to the economy of Deschutes County,- A
economy, particularly as the timber industry has gone into decline.
In 1989, Rrecognizing the importance of tourism to the economy of the State of Oregon, the state
legislature and the Land Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC") have takentook steps to
make it easier to establish destination resorts on rural lands in the state. Statewide Planning Goal 8, the
recreation goal, was amended to specify a process for locating destination resorts on rural land without.
taking an exception to Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14, which govern development in rural resource lands. This was
followed by legislation incorporating Goal 8 into Oregon's land use statutes. By these actions, the State ot:
Oregon recognized destination resorts as a legitimate rural land use. Under these changes, destination,
resorts may be sited in EFU zones where they weren't allowed before. Another action at the state level
allows destination resorts to be sited on forest lands pursuant to Goal 8.
. ••i
developments were not allowed in farm and forest zones.
Deschutes County was prompted by an application by the owners of Eagle Crest for legislative changes it,
the County's comprehensive plan and implementing land use ordinances. Following the changes to the
state re' lations because im lementation of destination resort siting under Goal 8 was optional and tht.
count had not undertaken that im • lementation the develo • ers of Ea le Crest a • • lied for le islativ&
changes in the County's comprehensive plan and implementing land use ordinances. The Eagle Cres'
owners -developers wished to expand their current destination resort onto adjacent lands and wished to do sc
without going through the exceptions process. They were able to do so when the County adopted
destination resort overlay map. In order, Pronghorn, Caldera Springs, and Tetherow resorts have been site&
since that time. Resorts existing prior to the legislative change, such as Black Butte, Sunriver and the Inn o
the Seventh Mountain have also ex • anded and been rezoned to Urban Uninco • orated Communit ani,
Resort Community, respectively.
In March 1990, LCDC adopted the "forest rule." This rule allows destination resorts to be sited or.
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 rem eligibl
lands for destination resorts not more fre•uently than once every thirty (30) months. Remapping is nov
dependent on creating a process for collectinprocessing all proposed map amendments submitted t, c
the county within that thirty (30) month planning_period.
PAGE 1 OF 5 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001
In order to allow destination resorts within the count Goal 8 re•uires that Deschutes Count ado•t 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 01
neighborhoods, transportation facilities and the rural quality of life. These impacts can, however, b,
substantially mitigated, however. The County recognizes the importance of balancing protection
mechanisms for 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 designate,
as being available for destination resort development and by developing balancedestablishing thorougi i
siting criteria. In establishing these thorough siting criteria,
Tthe County recognizes that it has the option to be more restrictive than state law in the areas it choose
to exclude from destination resort siting through the mapping process.
manner consistent with Goal 8 and state law that will allow proposed destination resorts to apply fc r
approval. Because of the County's need as part of periodic review to update its comprehensive plan ant
.. urgent farm uses in the County, it is appropriate la
implement Goal 8 in a phased fashion. Accordingly, the County has first considered siting destinatic
resorts on the following EFU lands not excluded by Goal 8: (1) unirrigated EFU land, (2) irrigated EF J
ination resorts in the first stage will be considered.
Notwithstanding the phased approach to destination resort zoning, it is appropriate to develep-sit g
c time.
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 9 2-
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
23.84.020. Goals.
L To provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planni ig
Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural developme!it,
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 ay
Deschutes County as eligible for this purpose.
3. To •rovide for the siting of destination resort facilities that enhance and diversi the recreatio nal
opportunities and economy of Deschutes County.
PAGE 2 OF 5 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001
4 To •rovide for develo•ment of destination resorts consistent with Statewide Plannin. 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 it
the following areas:
1. Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 o;'
more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management Q
the resort;
2. On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified am
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 a i
approved Goal exception;
4. On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan where a I
conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resourceprotected in spite ( €
5. Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by th
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 and as further refined throug i
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;
Sites less than 160 acres.
b. In addition, destination resorts shall not be located in areas zoned EFU 320, EFU 80, OS&
and F 1 (as designated pursuant to the implementation of the forest rule by Ordinance 92 02, r)
Fit
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 Coun'y,
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 Combini -tg
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 Cou!rgy
Regional Problem Solving Group;
PAGE 3 OF 5 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001
3. Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C);
4. Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1);
5. h-ri'ated 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;
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 irrigatec
acres;
5. Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships;
e. The 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 ai
overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR).
24. Ordinance provisions.
a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent lant.
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 endangero. i
species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation withii i
100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and
2. Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid o
minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects o 1
intensive farming operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order t
adequately assess the effect on the transportation system, notice and the opportunity fc r
comment shall be provided to the relevant road authority.
3. Such regulations may allow for alterations to important natural features, includin
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 wi 1
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 use ,,
including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fenced, berms, landscaped areas, ar
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 destinatic n
resorts are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the site and surrounding land use .
d. Uses in destination resorts shall be limited to visitor- oriented accommodations, overnigat
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 ai d
maintenance of open space.
e. The zoning ordinance shall include measure that assure that developed recreational facilitif s,
visitor -oriented accommodations and key facilities intended to serve the entire development a .e
physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivale it
financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developmen s,
PAGE 4 OF 5 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001
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.
a. The County shall adopt a zoning ordinance including all provisions required by Goal 8.
.L-. .• _2.
siting. Based on Alliance for Responsible Land Usc in Oregon v. Deschutes County, 23 Or
.,11. .
• .-- -
••
be excluded under Goal 8 countywide at this time. The exclusion will be reconsidered when
inventoried to determine whether any of that land constitutes high value crop ar as in a manner
adequate to determine whether any land in Deschutes County is within three miles of a high
value crop area located in a neighboring county.
County shall first consider unirrigated EFU lands and irrigated EFU lands having fewer than 40
where such lands are not otherwise excluded from destination resort siting under these policies,
and Goal 8. Next, as the county proceeds to implement the Goal 4 forest land rule as part o
periodic review, the County shall consider to what extent destination resorts may be sited or
pursuant to periodic review, the County shall consider to what extent destination resorts may bt
sited on EFU lands not considered during the first phase of implementation of Goal 8.
otherwise excluded by Goal 8 and Policies 2 and 3 herein, nothing in these policies sh1 affec.
remaining EFU lands for destination resort siting in conjunction with periodi
may make amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to add additional areas t
the destination resort map.
- - - l
zone changes to apply to DR zone to areas not designated under the Goal 8 process shall be accepted, unles s
(Ord. 2010-001 §1, 2010; Ord. 2002-005 §1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 §1, 2000; Ord. 93-029, 1993; Ord. 9:: -
029, 1992; Ord. 92-001, 1992)
PAGE 5 OF 5 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2010-001
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 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 June 7, the Board
conducted the first and second reading by title only and adopted both ordinances, declaring it ar
emergency.
BACKGROUND
Initiated by staff at the request of the Board and further modified by the Deschutes Count)
Planning Commission, Plan Amendment 2009-3 and Text Amendment 2009-9 encompassed it
Ordinances Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 create a process and criteria the County will follow tc
change its destination resort map. The two ordinances modify DCC Chapter 23.84, Destinatior,
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 attache, i
exhibits and underlined for new language and shown as strikethrough for deleted language.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Planning Commission on December 2 closed the public hearinc: ,
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 ma
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 abov(,)
requires property owners to submit a written request specifying that they want the
existing resort designation to remain. The grandfathered designation will expire howeve
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 ti- e
planning commission on November 19, 2009. It was distributed in mid-October to all property owners n
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 plar
amendment embodied in Ordinance No. 2010-001 relates to eligibility criteria, and 2010-002 tc
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'::
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS
1. Statewide Planning Goals.
The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate factua
base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide Goal 1, Citizer
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 goal:;
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, thc:
County's citizen review board for land use matters, and one before the Board. Goal 2 was me:
because ORS 197.455(2) allows for such an amendment process and these new codi.
provisions will be the framework for all future decisions on where to allow destination resorts
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 i
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 requirr:
preservation of those sites regardless of the use proposed for any given property. As for Goal;
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 ti)
assure that they are not approved in areas subject to natural resources and natural hazard:.
Goal 8 specifies the rural areas consisting of agricultural, forest, rural development, and nature I
resources that are eligible for siting destination resorts.3 Lastly, according to th
2 http://www.publications.old.state.or.us/A142351.htm. This change complies with new case lave,
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene and Good.asture Partners LLC, issued by the Oregon Court c f
Appeals on November 18, 2009.
3 http://egov.orecion.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goa18.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 o'
hearings body during the CMP process must find that the minimum dimensional standards al.(:
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 ha:.
none of those types of lands. The eighth finding below further substantiates that the tex:
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 t
on January 23, 2003. In 2003, the Oregon Legislature amended ORS 197.629(3) exemptin
counties from periodic review, excluding portions of its population within the urban growt 1
boundary (UGB) of a city. New language was added to ORS 197.455(2) in that same sessio i
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 ma
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" io
the statewide planning goals that limit development on farm or forest land. However, sever al
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 c: n
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 :o
statewide planning goals were adopted by the Land Conservation and Developme it
Commission (LCDC) in 1984 as amendments to Statewide Planning Goal 8. However, in 19IH7
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 al
a UGB.8 The mapping was done in a phased sequence, based on pending farm and foresl
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 beer,
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 mar
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
State of Oregon 9
an
• 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
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 1/2 - 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 Regardin 3
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, 92-03' ,
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
• 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 vas'
majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are irreversibly committed tc
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 a
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, includinc;
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
lriolgibl 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 IVlillican
• 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;
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;
• 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
Prdcedt res''.
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 the first Tuesday in
September by 5:00 p.m..
• Lands shown on the existing eligibility map but unable to comply with DCC 23.84.030(3)(a),
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 first Friday in January at 5:00 p.m. to remain
eligible.
• In addition to any other county code provision regarding notice, 30 days prior to the end of the
next 30 -month 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 al
the end of the next 30 -month cycle.
• Applications to either remove property from or add property to the eligibility map may bE
initiated by the Board, or, if by a property owner, shall:
Page 7 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
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 grandfathe •
clause that allows existing mapped properties to remain on the map regardless of whether the,,
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 the first
Tuesday in September by 5:00 p.m.
• (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 Count ✓
Community Development Department on an authorized county form by the first Friday i
January at 5:00 p.m.
8. Consistency with Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Deschutes County's Destination Resort Goal, DCC 23.84.020, provides for development cif
destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that w ll
be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that w!ll
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
discussed above, these new provisions were designed to comply with the statewide plannirg
10 See note 2. Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene and Goodpasture Partners, LLC, issued by tF e
Oregon Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009 requires a local plan amendment to demonstra e
consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule. Deschutes Cour :y
fulfills this obligation as cited in Table 3 above and specifically, Ordinance No. 2010-002, Exhibit A, DC: C
22.23.010(G)(5).
Page 8 of 9 - Exhibit B to Ordinance 2010-001
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 anc.
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 it
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