Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunriver Text Amend - continuedDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1961) (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of June 4, 2008 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: May 28, 2008 FROM: Terri Hansen Payne CDD 385-1404 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Continuation of a public hearing on PA -07-6 and TA -07-6, plan and text amendments to the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: These proposed plan and text amendments would permit the redevelopment of the Sunriver Village Mall area into a mixed use development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this project, but added conditions intended to address some of the potential impacts. The Board held an initial Public Hearing on April which was continued until April 30 and again until June 4. Revised language was submitted to the County on May 21. Staff has not fully analyzed the modified language. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Continue the public hearing to allow staff time to review the most recent amendments. ATTENDANCE: Terri Hansen Payne DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Terri Hansen Payne Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division ganlatlatkiNt 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT # 4 To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner Date: May 28, 2008 Hearing Date: June 4, 2008 Subject: Public Hearing on Sunriver Plan & Text Amendments PA-07-6/TA-07-6 PURPOSE SilverStar Destinations has proposed plan amendment PA -07-6 and text amendment TA -07-6 to revise Deschutes County Code (DCC) to create a Town Center district in the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The Town Center would accommodate mixed-use development including retail, commercial, overnight lodging, live/work and multi -family residential uses. PROPOSAL Background and staff reports on the record to date, can be found at the County website www.deschutes.orp/cdd under pending code amendments. This proposal has been continually evolving due to the complexity of creating a new set of regulations, and due to ongoing negotiations between the applicant, the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) Board and County staff. A new version was provided to staff on May 21 and staff has not yet had time to analyze the new language. No further revisions are anticipated at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS Recently received public comments are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to allow analysis of the revised language. Attachment 1. Public input received between April 21, 2008 and May 27, 2008 Quality Services Performed with Pride Attachment 1 Public Comments 4-21-08 through 5-27-08 Michael N. & LeAnn J. Wells 13260 Sandalwood Ct Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-720-0036 mike@wellsotis.com April 21, 2008 Terri Hansen Payne Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701-1925 Re: PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Dear Terri: As owner of #20 Aspen Lane in Sunriver, I am writing in support of the amendments to the County comprehensive Plan and Zoning code requested by Silverstar Destinations, LLC. The proposed allowed uses and development limitations are acceptable, and I recommend approval. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Michael N. Wells {rt u / 2rr0 LV VJ Law Offices of DeKLOTZ & GUGGENHEIM ATTORNEYS AT LAW AN ASSOCIATION OF A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION & SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP Fred W. DeKlotz, Jr., Inc. Richard R. Guggenheim April 16, 2008 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701-1925 RE: Continued Public Hearing Scheduled for April 30, 2008 Planning 7 Text Amendments PA-07-6/TA-07-6 Gentlepersons: 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 710 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone (408) 998-2700 Facsimile (408) 998-4703 Email: attorney@dkglaw.com `‘r.2a2000 We are residents of 2 Warbler West, Sunriver, Oregon and, in our absence, would appreciate this letter being made part of the above Public Hearing. We adamantly oppose the Proposal of SilverStar Destinations and request it submit a new plan based upon the original agreement between the SROA and SilverStar regarding density, height, open space, public green space, and provision for an SROA community Center. 1. It would appear as an initial observation that the above Proposal is a completely new proposal and not an Amendment of the previous proceedings initiated by SilverStar Destinations. 2. The original Agreement between the SROA and SilverStar stated that 50% of the Entire "Town Center District" must be dedicated to open space. Density was reduced from the first Proposal of SilverStar Destinations; which was based on a development encompassing 26.2 acres for 500 units = 19 units per acre to the present new Proposal of the same 500 units on its present site of 17 acres .= 29.41 units per acre. This would increase the current number of Sunriver residences by .10% in a space of less than 1% of the total area of Sunriver. Our overburdened bicycle trails and overcrowded swimming pools cannot support this density. 3. SilverStar Destinations purchased the Sunriver Shopping Center property under the guise of improving the tenancy of the present commercial retail shopping center with more viable tenants to better serve Sunriver residents and guests. It's position now is that its ability to fulfill its representation is contingent upon its ability to develop and market over 350 residences consisting of condominiums and hotel rooms and reduce the total retail space from its current 150,000 sq.ft. to 85,000 sq.ft. 4. According to the Sunriver Fire Marshall, Sunriver has no capacity to provide fire protection for structures of the heights requested. This is one of a number of identified additional burdens that the SilveStar revised plan would impose, as identified in the original Staff Report and as revised. Deja Vu!. It must be noted that the last developer also purchased the present site which had additional vacant land under the same guise - then proceeded to develop and market dense condominiums on that land from which it made substantial profit - then abandon the shopping center. The SilverStar Destinations is not in the best interest of the present residents of Sunriver If this Proposal is approved, it will result in severe urbanization of Sunriver, contrary to the historical purposes upon which Sunriver was developed and creating a life style community from which we have all fled and.corrupting the ecological paradise we now enjoy. Yours very truly, 709 Fred W. DeKlotz, Jr. Renee R. DeKlotz -2- Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:12 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: Board Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, Thanks for the information. As for the minimum commercial requirement the posted Planning Commission Draft Decision states : Space available for 120,000 square feet of commercial to be retained during project phasing, not committed to other uses Has this minimum requirement been dropped, has the commercial requirement been entirely dropped as your earlier e-mail would suggest? Also if the commercial requirement as called for in the draft decision, as well as the limitation on density (as you stated in your previous e-mail the density is at the originally requested 22 units/acre not the reduced amount called for in the draft decision) would this not invalidate the 6-1 approval recommendation from the Planning Commission and the 4-3 denial recommendation as initially voted before the conditions were included (and those conditions have been dropped from the current text amendment under consideration before the County Commission) be reinstated? At the very least there should be no recommendation forwarded from the Planning Commission to the County Commissioners as the very text amendment not only does not include the substantive conditions as called for by the Planning Commission as a condition of their approval vote. Additionally this is largely a new proposal that the Planning Commission did not get to review, take public testimony on, nor did they deliberate on the current proposal and text amendment as currently before the County Commissioners. Thank you for your help with this. As you can imagine the continually fluid nature of this proposal, even after 8 months from the first hearing, make this proposal very challenging to follow. Don Hutchison Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:30:12 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Don: The residential density calculations have not changed and as far as I know will not be changing. The minimum of 85,000 sq ft commercial requirement is in the agreement with the SROA and is not part of this text amendment. I do not know the existing commercial square footage outside of SilverStar's property, but it is a good question. You would need to contact the SROA on how that works. Thanks, Terri From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 6:04 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, One more question: The original proposal called for a minimum 85,000 square feet of commercial space (with a subsequent condition by the planning commission to increase this amount). Now that SilverStar is not acquiring all of the commercial areas within the Sunriver Mall area how does this restriction now stand? Is it still at 85,000 4/27/2008 square feet with the existing commercial structures counted toward the minimum required space? If so do you know the existing commercial square feet outside of the SilverStar owned property? Thanks, Don H. Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:33:13 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Mr. Hutchinson: For this text amendment, the density has not changed, it remains at 22 units/acre. The number of units would go down if they are going to apply that density to a smaller acreage, but it is the units/acre we are considering at this time. The height has not changed either, the proposed language remains. The applicant will be submitting a final version of the code language in the next few weeks, but I do not anticipate changes to either of those sections. There will be at least 20 days for the public to review the final language, and we will schedule another public hearing to provide the public a chance to comment. There will be a staff report prepared that will list the changes to the text so you don't have to compare word for word to understand what changes. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks! Terri Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-1404 Fax (541) 385-1764 terrip@co.deschutes.or.us From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:59 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, I am trying to completely understand the updated proposal from SilverStar and was hoping for your assistance. As to density and number of allowed residences what is in the current proposal? Also, in reviewing some of the wording I saw reference to building heights being from the ground to the highest point of a building. Has this changed or does the measurement criteria - the one that included the grade measure that used the Portland complex grade language - as well as the 10 foot allowance for architectural elements still remain? Thanks, Don Hutchison Thank 4/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Doug Doerfler [doug_doerfler@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:47 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall Rezoning Dear County Commissioners: My wife and I have lived in Sunriver for almost 4 years and owned property here for another 3 years. We are very excited to be living here. We are infavoror of Silverstar Destinations proposed plan to revitalize the Sunriver Mall by redevelping it into a mixed-use development. Our dream is to see the Mall developed into a new economic and social center for visitors, the surrounding community and local Sunriver residents. We have listened to and studied Silverstar's presentation by thier experienced team of design and planning consultants. We believe in thier plan and that it is in the best interests for all. We support the rezoning of of the Mall from its current zoning of commercial to a mixed-use zone that will allow for the incorporation of residential, retail, public space and attractions. This is a step that needs to be taken even if Silverstar were unable to continue with thier plans. Sincerely, Doug and Vicki Doerfler Sunriver Residents Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tammy Melton Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:02 PM To: 'skiptrain@comcast.net Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Town Center District- Sunriver Hi Mr. and Mrs. Marquard- Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been forwarded for inclusion in the public record. In Partnership, Tawtk& j CeZA,eu) Melton, Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: skiptrain@comcast.net [mailto:skiptrain@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:32 AM To: Tammy Melton Subject: Town Center District- Sunriver We are strongly opposed to the re -zoning of the Village Mall to a Town Center District. We think the condos proposed by Silver Star will result in a signification deterioration in the quality of life with traffic congestion, clogging our bike paths, which already quite busy in July and August. We first visited Sunriver in 1971 and were attracted by the planning concepts and vision for Sunriver by the Founders John Gray and Donald McCallum. We purchased our Sunriver property in 1983. We purchased our property because of the environment, scenic values and recreational opportunities. Sunriver doesn't need Silver Star's proposal to be and remain a desireable and viable resort community. The Mall with basic services is perfectly adequate to meet the needs of the Sunriver Community. Silver Star's proposal is certainly not in concert with the vision John Gray and Donald McCallum had for Sunriver. It is that vision that makes Sunriver the wonderful place it is. M.A. Skip Marquard Lynne B. Marquard 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Maryann Phillips [maryann0207@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:28 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Town Center District April 22, 2009 To: Terri Hansen Payne Members of the Deschutes County Planning Commission Deschutes County Commissioners Re: Sunriver Town Center District I am writing in support of the current proposal. I am one of the Sunriver owners who voted against the sale of additional land to Silver Star. I felt that was the only way we could scale back the project which I felt was incompatible with Sunriver. The new proposal with fewer dwelling units and buffers of land is in better proportion to the rest of Sunriver. I still have concerns about the project but I believe those will be a matter for our Sunriver Design Committee to deal with after a Town Center District receives approval. Maryann Phillips owner since 1977 2 Mt.. St. Helens Lane and Ridge Unit 19B (also a member of the Sunriver Long Range Planning Committee until it was abolished last August) 4/27/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bert Loughmiller [bloughmiller@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:55 AM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SilverStar's application to amend the County Comprehensive Plan Dear Board Members, We support SilverStar's application to amend the County Comprehensive Plan. We have been property owners in Sunriver for the past 18 years. During that time, we have watched the present mall area deteriorate and become progressively vacant of tenants as it has passed through several ownership changes. The deterioration makes evident that the restrictive zoning applied to this property has not allowed for successful commercial activity and has rendered development and rehabilitation economically unfeasible. Other communities of similar resort and permanent residence mix throughout the western United States, including several in eastern Oregon, demonstrate that mixed use zoning such as that proposed by SilverStar works. Where mixed use zoning has been allowed to work, it has raised property values and produced an increase in economic activity that benefits the surrounding community and thereby increased county revenues. By approving SilverStar's application, you will make possible such a benefit to Deschutes County, whether as a result of a successful redevelopment project yet to be negotiated and approved with SilverStar or by one accomplished with a successor owner. In either case, your approval now is a vital step and represents a prudent action. Sincerely, Bert and Kaye Loughmiller Owners of 7 Yellowpine, Sunriver 1 To: board@co.deschutes.or.us cc: terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, I wish to express my strong support for the SilverStar efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Mall. Although we live outside of Sunriver, we utilize and patronize the merchants in the Sunriver Mall. Over the years, while we have seen growth and modernization in our community, additional newly developing communities and the upgrading of other facilities in Sunriver, we have seen the Mall continually deteriorate. None of the previous owners of the Mall have done anything to maintain, modernize or revitalize it. As a result, the buildings have become aged, are failing, and are in very bad shape. The Mall has become less inviting causing a large turnover of merchants. Conditions have worsened to the point that making repairs to the existing Mall will not make a difference. I support SilverStar's efforts to reverse the deterioration and to rebuild and revitalize the Mall into a place that is attractive to all. They have brought the resources and planning to make the major changes necessary to rejuvenate the Mall as a mixed-use development and to make it a new economic and social hub of south Deschutes County. In order for them to proceed, the zoning must be changed. Therefore I strongly urge you to approve SilverStar's application for a zoning change. Rebecca & David Wilkins (Caldera Springs Owners and 17061 Cooper Drive owners) P.O. Box 3111 Sunriver, OR 97707 We own 4 small businesses here and need this project to help this area improve so we can continue to improve our business. Our children Robbie (14) and Rachel (12) are impacted by this decision as well. They would like to be able to continue their activities such as ice skating (in a safe environment), going to Goodie's, riding their bikes to the store, etc. Without this mall improvement, we will not continue to go as a family, or let them go. We are concerned for their safety in its current condition. We moved here for the atmosphere and activities and have been very disappointed about its current state. Please make it possible for this company to save our lifestyle and make us want to be a part of the Village again. Terri Hansen Payne From: Peter Martin [petemartin@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:03 PM To: Board Subject: ZONING CHANGE FOR SUNRIVER Dear County Commissioners, I know this has been a long a arduous task and appreciate your patience. I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGES TO PERMIT THE NEW MALL PROPOSAL TO GO FORWARD. THIS IS GOOD FOR SUNRIVER AND GOOD FOR THE COUNTY! Pete Martin 10 Indian Lane Sunriver 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Gary and Maggie [garyandmaggie@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:58 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Business Mall Zoning Proposal As a Sunriver resident, I wish to add my voice to the many expressing concern over the subject proposal. The full extent of community concern showed in the failure of the recent Sunriver ballot measure on the sale of SROA property to the developer, Siiverstar. The measure was essentially a public referendum on the zoning proposal and voters obviously felt that no mall redevelopment (a possibility stated by a the developer's spokesman if the ballot measure failed) would be preferable to the proposal as approved by the planning commission. The measure did not fail because homeowners don't want a revitalized commercial mall. It failed because of the overriding issues with the applicant's proposal. These issues include the proposed high residential density, building height, lack of open space and limited parking, along with unanswered questions about the impact on community services and amenities. Many of us in the community have no doubt that this proposal is not good for Sunriver. A truly viable solution would fit a commercial center into the context of the existing community. The developer's proposal does not do that. It is fundamentally at odds with Sunriver development standards. Proposed residential parking is woefully inadequate, and business parking for is far less than currently exists. Lack of open space will make it difficult to impossible to stage the large scale activiites that now attract the public and benefit business in the mall. Further, the proposed building height serves the sole purpose of creating high density residential units, not commercial space. The developer has argued that the high density residential component is necessary to make the commercial entity viable. However, this completely ignores the fact that the mall already has a substantial and growing residential component - the greater Sunriver area, which includes not just Sunriver proper but Crosswater, Caldera Springs and the surrounding vicinity. I doubt that people look for a place to shop because of the concentration of residential apartments. Sacrificing open space and parking for high density residential development would do little to make businesses within our commercial core more viable. In fact, it could stifle business. A truly vibrant business mall should be specifically that - a commercial district that is compatible with the surrounding area and attracts activity from that area. Sunriver is a resort and recreation oriented community and the mall is our only commercial center. Any zoning change must first and foremost promote business development compatible with the community, not high density residential more fitting to a metropolitan center. I urge you to reduce the residential component such as to keep building height, parking and open space all consistant with community and county standards. This would also lower the impact on Sunriver services and amenities, and preserve the full commercial potential of our mall. Sincerely, Gary Chandler (10 White Alder, Sunriver) 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Doug & Marlene Roberts [dandmroberts@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:34 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: In favor of the SilverStar application Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, Marlene and I strongly support for SilverStar's efforts to obtain approval of a Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Mall. When the land sale election recently failed to receive the necessary 60% of the votes, we asked ourselves, "How come?" We can only assume that SilverStar was frustrated and wondering if the "no" vote meant that the "vocal minority" was simply out to stop progress. We owe you our thoughts and considerations. We are not against the development but we were among the "no" votes. We agree that revitalizing the Mall must happen and that it takes someone "thinking big" to be able to afford to do it. We applaud SilverStar for their commitment to Sunriver and support their efforts. They seem to have the motivation and vision that past owners lacked. However, we reluctantly voted against the land sale for the several reasons noted below. • The vote appeared to be "all or nothing" which is too bad because the results can easily be construed as being anti the entire plan. We don't think that is the case. • With a development of the planned density, retaining "open" common space to maintain the Sunriver "feel" must remain a priority. • The scope of the project grew beyond its initial concept with the additional land offered to the project. It started to feel beyond the scale appropriate for Sunriver. • We were concerned with the impact of selling and relocating Beaver Drive from its current location. The recent "scaled back" design appears to have resolved our previous concerns. We encourage SilverStar, SROA and the County to continue to find the innovative and creative ideas that have brought this proposal this far. It is an exciting and critical time for the future of Sunriver and we are excited to see this move forward. In order for them to proceed, the zoning must be changed. Therefore, we strongly urge you to approve SilverStar's application for a zoning change. Doug and Marlene Roberts Owners: Antelope 18, Sunriver, Or 12080 NW Big Fir Circle Portland, Oregon 97229 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Rob Anno [r.anno@AllweatherWood.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:39 PM To: Board Subject: SilverStar Dear Deschutes County Board Members: I have been an owner in Sunriver for over 10 years. During this time I have witnessed the continued deterioration of the "Mall" area. I am also an avid skier. I have visited vibrant mall areas in Park City, Utah, Whistler, B.C., BeaverCreek and Aspen/Snowmass, Colorado among others and have seen first hand how much value they can bring to a resort area. The homeowners who voted against the SilverStar project are not thinking about the long term effects of Sunriver without a viable mall area. Many homes, as is ours, are rented to vacationers. With the growth of other options not only in the Central Oregon area but throughout the country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to rent. We need the restaurants, shops and other amenities a viable mall provides to continue to bring vacation revenue into the area. I am also concerned about the long term effects on property values and of course tax revenues should Silverstar be unable to proceed: Thank you for your consideration. Rob Anno V.P. Sales/Marketing Allweather Wood LLC. White City, Oregon 97504 1-800-759-5909 4/27/2008 #3 Prostaff Sunriver, Oregon Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: stag lane [morriscindy@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:48 AM To: Board Subject: vote no Please help, I on Fox Lane Just behind the Medical Clinic. I have owned my home since 1982 and plan to retire in Sunriver. Would you like someone to put up apartments and Condo's next to your home? I can not afford to buy a home new home away from here. I need to protect my privacy and quiet location. Please Do not vote for the increased Density Of Dwellings in Sunriver. thank you Cynthia Autrey cindyautrey@gmail.com 4/27/2008 SilverStar's Town Center District Application Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Parker, Craig [Craig. Parker@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:01 AM To: Board Cc: meleastdrew@hotmail.com Subject: SilverStar's Town Center District Application To the Board of County Commissioners: I am writing to voice my complete support for the application by SilverStar to create a Town Center District in its effort to rebuild the mall in Sunriver. We own a townhouse condominium in a complex known as Fremont Crossing which is located right next to the Sunriver mall. Our goal is to spend several months a year at our Sunriver home once retirement comes in the next year or so. I welcome the SilverStar redevelopment project even though it will have obvious impacts on our home. And I am convinced after hours of careful study of the public debate over SilverStar's plans that SilverStar's proposed Village at Sunriver will be of enormous benefit to the Sunriver community at large. SilverStar has taken a professional approach in its ongoing relationship and communication with the Sunriver community. In fact, in my view, SilverStar is doing a monumental service to all of us here by continuing to take the mall project on despite the small group of individuals whose goal it is to impose their individual will on the entire Sunriver community. Indeed, there is now a personal lawsuit pending and future appeals are threatened by certain people who oppose SilverStar's application in a publicly stated attempt to make the proposed village project economically unviable. I think that personal stratgies should yield in favor of public process, debate and resolution. Therefore, I strongly urge the Board of Deschutes County Commisioners to carefully consider SilverStar's application and do what is best for the Sunriver community at Targe. But be assured that my unequivocal vote is to move this project forward now. Thank you. Craig Parker, Fremont Crossing, Sunriver Oregon. 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: Edward LAVERY [odanuki-san@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:05 PM To: Board Subject: Silver Star proposed Town Center Devleopment in Sunriver Please insure this letter is distributed to all Board members. 24 April, 2008 To: Deschutes County Planning Commission, Sunriver Board of Directors, Sunriver Scene, Sunriver owners and residents. As a Sunriver resident and homeowner, I fully support the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall property. I do however expect the Sunriver Board of Directors and Deschutes County Planning Commission to act in the best interest of the Sunriver Community. It was clear from recent debate regarding Silver Star's proposed Town Center Development that people were divided into two "All or Nothing" camps. Silver Star threatened to walk away and let the existing facilities sit and rot if they did not get their way. Does anyone really think that investors with 26 million dollars tied up are going to let their investment sit and rot? It's not going to happen. Let there be no mistake that Silver Star is acting solely in what it considers the best interest of its stakeholders. This exclusively means maximizing profits. There should be no delusions that this group is acting in the interests of the Sunriver community. Silver Star will take everything it can get form Sunriver and the County to best serve its interests. Higher population density, less parking, and no green space mean higher profits. It's just that simple. Their bottom line is not in the best interest of the community. Sliver Star will proceed with what they are given. It's up to "us" as residents, homeowners, Sunriver Board members, and County Planning Commissioners - to insure that the resulting development will have a "long term" positive impact on the community. We can work with Silver Star and support the development with out making concessions that will have sever and costly long-term consequences. Common sense dictates that there are issues where the Sunriver community and the County Planning Commission need to put their collective feet down. It's not "All or Nothing", and our decision-making should not be influenced by threats of abandonment, biased propaganda, or disinformation presented to sway decision makers. Many of these issues where, for reasons unknown, ignored in the previous decision process. Sunriver residents and homeowners, members of the Sunriver Board of Directors, and Deschutes County Planning Commissioners, each now have the unique opportunity to correct the previous oversights regarding the approval of Silver Star's Sunriver Town Center Development Plan. It should be understood that insisting on good planning does not in any way threaten future development. It does however, insure a much greater potential for a harmonious community. Support the Town Center while insisting on good planning. Maximizing Silver Star profits should not be part of the decision making process. 4/27/2008 Page 2 of 3 Here are some of the issues that will have a lasting impact on the Sunriver community. Every Sunriver homeowner should be concerned that these issues are properly addressed. Given that their current plan still shows development on land that will not be sold to Silver Star as determined by the failure of the land sale measure to pass, I don't see how the Planning Commission or anyone else can deduce exactly what Silver Star has in mind. The first thing that must be done is submittal of a completely new accurate plan that depicts development on land currently owned by Silver Star. No point in going any further until that is accomplished. Two of the biggest concerns, without question, are the proposed population density per acre and the resulting impact of Sunriver traffic and facilities, and the failure to provide adequate parking. The current proposal would put 10% of Sunriver's population in 1/2% of its total area. This not only violates the basic principals that Sunriver was founded on, it violates existing County codes. These codes were well thought out and established for a reason. They need to be adhered to. Unless the County Planning Commission is ignoring the impact that the high density will have on the community and focusing solely on potential tax revenue, there is absolutely no good reason to allow the proposed high population density. Higher profits are not valid reasons for excessive population density and inadequate parking. This issue was previously ignored. You can now fix it. Please reject the proposed density in favor of current Sunriver Rules and County Codes. It's easy. There is no logical reason not to. There is a common misconception when comparing Silver Star's proposed Town Center to Whistler or other ski/resort destinations. People fly to those destinations. They get a shuttle, bus, or cab to the resort and have no need for personal transportation once they arrive. They step out of their residence and walk to a ski lift, or to a shopping/dining area. Here in Sunriver the vast majority of guests arrive by personal auto. This makes parking, which is not an issue at other destination resorts, a major concern here in Sunriver. Lets take this into account when making decisions regarding the number and location of parking spaces. Please enforce strict requirements for providing adequate parking, which should include adherence to existing Sunriver Rules and County Codes. No exceptions. If anything, parking requirements in excess of the Codes should be required to compensate for loss of space due to snow buildup. This issue was previously ignored. You can now fix it. Further, any parking "structure" will bring noise, light pollution, and crime. No doubt there will be all night security lighting and the incessant noise, car alarm soundings (magnified by the architecture), and crime that accompany all parking structures. The structure should be place directly in the center of the proposed development. This would make parking centrally located and available to all residents and shoppers. It would also shield the rest of Sunriver from the inevitable noise and light pollution it will generate. The Sunriver Board and County Planning Commission should insist on this provision. This issue was previously ignored. You now have the opportunity to fix it. Silver Star should be required to demonstrate exactly how snow removal would be accomplished. We get considerably more snow here than in Bend. It plies up and stay's with us for several months. There should also be consideration for snow that slides from rooftops. You can't plow snow down dead end streets. You can't get delivery, or more importantly, emergency vehicles in and out of narrow, snow bound streets. Where are people going to park when the spaces are full of snow? This issue was ignored last time. Please take the opportunity to fix it. Open space requirements should be clearly defined and streets and parking area should not be considered "open space'. This is not an urban area. It was never intended to be. 4/27/2008 Page 3 of 3 How will Sunriver Utilities handle the impact of a 10% increase in sewage handling and water requirements? Will new facilities have to be constructed at Sunriver owner's expense? Where is the study addressing this issue? Please take a copy of this document to all planning meetings and insure each of the listed items are address to complete satisfaction in the interest of the Sunriver Community. There you have it. Lets all support development of a new Town Center. But lets protect our interests in Sunriver and make sure it's done properly. It's not an all or nothing issue, is it? Edward Lavery 6 Squirrel Lane, Sunriver, Or. 4/27/2008 HARVEY C. BARRAGAR 7730 SW Fairmoor St. Portland, Or 97225 April 24, 2008 Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Subject: PA -07-6 and TA -07-06 Proposed Changes to the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Dear Commissioners, I have been a Sunriver property owner for more than 15 years. For about 40 years until I retired at the end of 2002 I practiced law with a prominent Portland law firm now known as Miller Nash. Much of my practice involved representation of developers, property owners, lenders and investors in connection with real estate matters. I have had a substantial amount of involvement with shopping centers and condominiums including a number of projects in Deschutes County. Written submissions and oral testimony before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners appear to represent two divergent views of the Sunriver Mall. Many owners are dissatisfied with the mall and want it replaced with a vital commercial core without regard for the adverse impact of the very dense and very large residential development that comes with the SilverStar proposal. A second group of owners, while not necessarily satisfied with the current mall, believe that the proposed cure is worse than the disease. SilverStar has promoted its proposal on the basis that because of the purchase price SilverStar paid for the mall, development of a profitable residential component is necessary to permit it to create the vibrant commercial core that Sunriver residents want to have. I have raised many legal and substantive issues in written and oral communications to the Planning Commission. An issue that seems to have been glossed over in all the arguments back and forth about the SilverStar proposal is whether it is really likely to result in a vibrant commercial core for Sunriver. I believe that it will not for the following reasons: 1. No commitment to retail. When SilverStar started promoting its proposal they skillfully created images of nice shops and restaurants in the mall. It was suggested that the new Sunriver mall would be so grand that it would attract business from Bend. When SilverStar drafted zoning language the grand shopping mall concept was gone. They lumped the shops and restaurants in with offices for real estate agents, property managers, title insurance companies, doctors, dentists, mortgage brokers and other nonretail uses. Initially, in the promotion phase, commercial uses were expected to be as much as 120,000 sq. ft. (somewhat smaller that the existing mall) with a commitment to develop at least 85,000 sq. ft. The Planning Commission decided that SilverStar's 85,000 sq. ft. commitment was inadequate and recommended an increase. SilverStar's response was to reduce the required amount of commercial development to 150 sq. ft. per "dwelling unit." (It takes some very careful study to figure out what is a "dwelling unit" for purposes of this requirement.) It should be noted, however, that none of this commercial development is required to be retail. It appears that construction of a 15,000 sq. ft. grocery store would be enough commercial development to permit the construction of a 200 room hotel. Sunriver already has a grocery store, run-down though it may be, and it does not need a hotel. What about the shops and restaurants? Why are they not required in the town center zoning? Could it be that SilverStar has no interest in being a landlord to these types of businesses? 2. Necessary ingredients for a vibrant commercial development are missing. Think of a vibrant commercial development in Bend. The Shops at the Old Mill District comes to mind. It is being done by a developer with vision and the expertise and experience to carry out the vision. The developer is focusing on the retail core. National and regional retail tenants have been attracted. It is an exciting place to be. Is this sort of vibrant development likely to take place in the Sunriver Mall? Of course not. SilverStar has no development experience and has not owned retail property. (The downward spiral of the Sunriver Mall started when it was owned by a successful real estate investor without retail experience.) As pointed out by SilverStar's consultant, the Sunriver Mall has a short selling season. It will never attract national and regional retail tenants. It is not easy being landlord to local tenants who seasonally may have trouble selling enough merchandise or meals to pay the rent. With the cost of new construction in the mall it is reasonable to expect that rents will increase for already financially troubled tenants. The high cost of building in restaurant tenants, particularly in multi-story buildings is likely to be more than seasonal Sunriver restaurants can afford. It is a lot easier to lease to real estate agents and property managers but they contribute virtually nothing toward creating a vibrant commercial core. No doubt SilverStar's energies, such as they are, will be devoted to its residential development. That is where the money is. Without a committed and experienced retail developer and operator, there is very little likelihood that the promised vibrant commercial core will ever materialize. 3. The town center development process is not designed to result in the promised vibrant commercial development. The conceptual site plan procedure proposed by SiiverStar gives the developer virtually absolute discretion as to specific land uses as long as they do not violate overall use restrictions. It is not even necessary to meet all of the presently existing site plan approval criteria. Land that has been sold is not covered nor is the existing commercial development east of Beaver Drive. What kind of town center zoning do we have when adjacent commercial property has different zoning? Does this promote a vibrant commercial core? The site specific plan review does not adequately cope with enforcing required amounts of commercial development (to say nothing of retail) in the way it transfers requirements from one phase to another of the basis of starting construction of commercial. It is very difficult to tell in a mixed use building under construction what space will eventually be commercial. Only with a requirement for a specified amount of RETAIL SPACE OCCUPIED BY TENANTS OPEN FOR BUSINESS in each phase before the next phase can begin is there any hope for a semblance of a successful refurbished mixed use mall. 4. Emphasis on residential dooms commercial component to failure. Creating the new Sunriver Mall envisioned by SilverStar is a very complex development project. It is a daunting task to accomplish demolition and construction in phases while maintaining an environment in which existing tenants can continue to do business. There is little reason to believe that a totally inexperienced developer like SilverStar can pull it off. SilverStar has no equity in the property, having borrowed the purchase price. It may be expected that portions of the property will be sold off to realize some working capital for the development. Multiple ownerships will further complicate an already complex development. As noted above the site plan review process proposed by SilverStar does not deal with multiple ownership. With the focus on profitable residential, commercial use could be spread out around the mall on the ground floor of widely separated mixed use buildings. Without focus there is no chance for a vibrant commercial core. In the current conceptual plan the grocery store is removed from the rest of the development. Other retail, if there is any, may be separated by a wall of tall residential buildings and will have no opportunity to feed off the customers of the grocery store. In most shopping centers, shops are clustered around an anchor tenant such as a grocery store. How long can existing tenants survive during a prolonged construction period, particularly if they are cut off from the grocery store? After the residential units are built and sold the developer is likely to have little interest in running a fragmented commercial facility. What began as something akin to a carless European village now has a main street running down it. No doubt this is to accommodate the residential buildings. SilverStar tells us that the street will be shut down for special events. After the residential units are sold and any shutdown of the street would inconvenience the owners, you can be sure that shutdowns will be rare indeed. Residential owner hostility to all sorts of special events should be expected. The Pacific Crest Half Ironman Triathlon that now is headquartered in the mall would only be an irritant to residential owners in the mall. So too with the exotic car show, the chili cookoff and other events that are now held in the mall. In truth, owner hostility might be irrelevant because the mall would be too small to justify the sort of management that would organize these special events. Cars owned by occupants of residential units may be expected to choke off parking for customers of commercial uses, particularly if SilverStar follows through with its minimalist parking approach. 5. There is an alternative. The Sunriver Mall suffers from a large amount of deferred maintenance and a lack of tenants. However the main part of the mall includes buildings that fit in with Sunriver. It was designed by an award winning architect. From the exterior the buildings appear to be structurally sound When the mall was kept up and had a good tenant mix, it was a very pleasant place to shop. It should be preserved rather than torn down. (Remember the Pilot Butte Inn.) The plaza has been an excellent place for events. On the other hand, the buildings on the northerly portion of the mall have little to recommend them. They would not be missed if they were torn down. If this proposal were really about a vibrant commercial core for Sunriver, the plan would be to refurbish the main part of the mall and to build residential on the north portion of the mall property of a size and density comparable to the rest of Sunriver with its own amenities and open space similar to the high successful Quelah Condominiums. SilverStar which admittedly paid too much for the property will respond that this proposal is not economically feasible. To which I respond; this proceeding is supposedly about creating a vibrant commercial core for Sunriver. It should not be about bailing out a real estate speculator who paid too much for property that was not zoned for the use the speculator hoped for. There is no justification for approving the SilverStar proposal. It should be rejected. Very truly yours, Harvey C. Barragar cc Terri Hansen Payne Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: GEOWHIZZ@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:17 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Density in the proposed "new" construction idea is still extreme...I am not sure what RULES the planning dept uses for real estate developments, but if they are listening to the developers wishes they are wrong. All over Bend the developers crammed on houses/acre...Almost a crime! Where is the free zones?? Room for someone to stretch their arms..."Destination resort" status seems to break the rules all for money...The county is guilty too. Money, Money!! Sunriver's original concept for retirement living plus some "resort" setup will be overused and abused if this plan goes forward as someone wants....And who are WE competing against??? I was told the sewer system and water system could handle all this My water pressure has gone down over the years.and more phases keep being added for the surplus water. Where does Crosswater and Cauldera Springs have their sewers and water supplies??? Maybe since Sunriver owns them all, excess will be pumped over there...It is just too dense of a condo, stand-alone complex...the so called retail areas, will be the least concerned part of the development...And for such as massive investment, what type of retail groups will be able to afford the rents Gary Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Melanie E Drew [meleastdrew@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:22 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Rezoning Application To the Board of County Commissioners; I heartedly endorse the change in zoning for the Sunriver town center that has been presented by SilverStar. I am an owner and part-time resident and have been watching as our village is falling into more disrepair and is frequented by so few people. It is becoming a blight for us. Something has to be done to attract businesses, conveniences and people. As I have investigated the situation, I have learned that a majority of us feel strongly that the plans presented by SilverStar are not only acceptable but would greatly improve our living situation, land values and attractiveness for visitors. I understand that a small and very vociferous minority has surfaced. There is always one but he (they) doesn't (don't) reflect the desires of the majority. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Melanie Drew - Sunriver owner meleastdrew@hotmail.com 4/27/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: John Liel [john.liel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:39 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver village proposal Deschutes County Board, Yes the Sunriver Mall needs revitalization. However, the SilverStar proposal in front of you is NOT the way to go. Sunriver is a forested community founded to co -exist and respect nature. The proposed village does neither. The density is much too high. The height of the buildings needs to be scaled down considerably. The current plan does not contain enough recreational facilities. The existing Sunriver facilities would become much too crowded. The pool in the new SilverStar proposal is not adequate. I urge you to NOT approve this proposal as it stands. There need to be major modifications. As evidenced by the land sale vote, there are many Sunriver owners, such as myself, who do not agree with the current plan. Thank you for your consideration. John Liel Sunriver owner for 16 years 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Roger Burbank [burby9@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:09 PM To: Board Subject: sunriver Hello, My wife are not in favor of any purposal that includes 300 plus codos in the sunriver mall area, it is just to small of an area for this type of construction. I beleive it is rental companies and people looking to get rich off this that want it, it is not good for the homeowner at all. This is not needed we are minutes away from Bend and Lapine to do our shopping get gas dine out. Sunriver is nice the way it is, yes the mall needs an update BUT not this. Roger Mary Burbank #2 red fir Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/; _ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Betty Munson [betty.munson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:09 AM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Village Mall I am writing, as a homeowner in Sunriver, to strongly encourage the Board to approve the mixed-use zoning change currently being considered. I see many positives that would come from this change, and very few, if any, negatives. Betty Munson #5 Pyramid Mt. Sunriver, OR 4/27/2008 Message Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Ruth Jenkins [rejl@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:26 AM To: Board Cc: info@savesunriver.org Subject: Sunriver Mall Gentlemen, I encourage you to review Silver Star's application for rezoning of the Sunriver Mall area with especial care to limit residential density and height. There is nothing wrong with a mixed use development, or the concept of a village center in general, but in forested area, a high density urban center is totally out of character. 22 dwellings per acre is absurd! Please limit any development in this new zoning classification to a more reasonable height limit (like 4 stories) and density (how about 10/acre. 15 per acre is considered Medium - density multifamily residential in an eastern, urban area http://www.mc- mncppc.org/development/about/zoning legend.shtm . Central Oregon isn't anything like an eastern -united states urban area. A true VILLAGE would be fine, but an URBAN CENTER is a far cry from a VILLAGE. Also - be SURE to force the developers to provide for the necessary infrastructure to support their development - especially improvements to sewer and water service. Don't let them pass these costs off onto the hypothetical "tax base" of all of their proposed development. The capital improvements to sewer and water servies has to occur before these units are built and sold. These costs should not be borne by current homeowners. Sincerely, Ruth Jenkins 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:23 PM To: Board Cc: 'Save Sunriver'; infosroa@srowners.org Subject: Tourists make lousy neighbors, ref. PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 To the County Board of Commissioners: Last night I looked at the latest drawings submitted to the Sun Rental Scene from the Silver Star Village mess and see that they have changed their plans yet again! The pictures provided on the related web site show the levels of the buildings at now somewhere between 5 to 6? I was told by Silver Star representatives at the Planning Commissioners meeting that their proposal was an all or nothing deal. I guess we can't believe much of anything that they tell you. I see where they are now offering up something different, but it is yet to be determined just what it will be. Their plans appear to not take into account the changes that the Planning Committee said was required prior to their final approval vote. (Ref. the density reduction proposed which was still too much for four of the Planning Commissioners?) Please remember their first vote would have been to reject the proposal without all these changes. The late Mr. Charlton Heston once told Bill Clinton, the President, that if what you said was incorrect then that is just a mistake, but if you said it and knew it was wrong then that was an out right lie. I believe that Silver Star and by association SROA, Sun -rental operators agency, have lied to the citizens of Sunriver from the start of this proposal. The area Brokers and low rent Rental Agencies, which most of them don't even live in Sunriver proper, have been sending in memos in support of the zone changes. This apparently to help them increase customer traffic in hopes to allow them to make a buck, even if it screws up the areas planned livability. The SR areas 270 chamber members, made up of mostly by real estate people, surely can't believe they can keep them all game fully employed selling our homes without creating a lot more discontent. Much like Mr. Daily said the other day when voting not to hold Pronghorn resort accountable for not following the rules, if the rentals are not being rented why have them build more? I understand that 3 Rivers, Cross Waters and Calderas springs is weighing in on this in favor of this out of scale proposal, ref. OAR 660-022 Small Scale low impact uses in our Unincorporated Urban Community. 5R is not a Destination Resort but has continuing pressures to make it one. That should all change with current code enforcement being enacted. I'd like to suggest that this proposals planned density be relocated to anyone of these three areas or better yet move it all to the Business Park outside of Sunriver proper. The business park has evolved with little though nor has it been planned with any quality in mind and I'm sure this village proposal would fit in just fine in the front entrance to DR Calderas Springs. The current SR village could then be removed with the exception of Goodies, a good coffee shop and a nice 20 acre fishing lake be put in its place. Now that's what I call a plan! This assumes all the bike rentals as well as the many rental real-estate offices go to the BP as well. I would like to know just who was in charge in the County and SROA Planning when Fremont Crossing got approved to be built in our SR Commercial zone, but that's yet another issue, almost as bad as allowing Commercial in our SR Single Residential Home zones, right? As an interested non-resident owner I will certainly try to make the poorly planned middle of the week meeting, but considering the weather in the pass and the fact that I still don't have a clear idea just what their plans are I'm not sure what I can say that has not already been said. Please Note: I'II be the one of the ones up front without a button on my chest but if for some reason I'm not able to attend I'd like to request the meeting be continued to a better date, lets say how about on a weekend. 4/28/2008 Page 2 of 2 In closing please don't let the bed bugs bite. Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com 4/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Karen [khburkebile@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:14 PM To: Board; bulletin@bendbulletinl.com; brooke@sunriverowners.com Subject: Addelman suit I would like to express my support for a group of people that we have elected by due process who have studied the issues about the badly needed redevelopment of of the Sunriver village. I also believe, since many are local residents (and live in nearby areas) that they have a better understanding of local issues and Sunriver's best interests and heart as well as recognizing the local problems. In contrast, Mr. Adelman, apparently a land use attorney on the East Coast, admits in a recently posted letter on the "Save Sunriver" website, he doesn't know if the development of a new circle between Beaver Drive and Abbott Drive is necessary. I don't know how often Mr. Adelman visits Sunriver, but even though we are only in Sunriver about 3 weeks yearly, we recognize the problems trying to exit from Beaver Drive onto Abbott Drive, especially after the lifts have closed and the skiers are returning. I believe in his "vast experience as a land use attorney" that he also has no recognition of the issues unique to Sunriver and is threatening and bullying Sunriver that he will tie up SROA, the Developers and current owners of the village, and possibly even the Lodge if they do not "agree" with his thinking. I have personally visited Whistler (developed by the planners) and enjoyed the village feel with the walking street and limited auto accessibility. I also believe (since one of his "issues" is the additional housing in the village area) that perhaps he will not be as able to rent out his property as much. 1, however, believe that the resort is large enough to handle the additional visitors which will support the kind of boutique, upscale shops that would have a much better chance of surviving in the new village. They currently haven't been able to survive. We need this vital core development for visitors to continue to come to Sunriver, instead of going elsewhere. David and Karen Burkebile Wildflower 26 30 Harborview Drive #5 Port Townsend, WA 98368 4/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Gary Gehlert [ggehlert@chamberscable.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:56 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: silverstar To: Terri Payne Hansen terrip@co.deschutes.or.us. County Commissioners I was initially opposed to SilverStar's proposal to "revitalize" Sunriver. I found the residential density and the proposed building heights unacceptable. I still do. I suspect Whistler, Aspen, and all the other great resorts SilverStar keeps reminding us of were built around their town center concept. That is a good idea. It is not a good idea to superimpose a town center on an already existing community. If SilverStar's proposal were for a brand new resort in Deschutes County I would support it. I would also get to choose, or not to choose, to live there. There seems to be considerable evidence that rural Deschutes County does not need more nightly rental units. Just this week Pronghorn was given five more years to reach the required goal of a 2 to 1 ratio of single family homes to overnight lodging units. In Sunriver gross rental dollars seem to be increasing year by year while the number of nights the average home in the rental pool is rented seems to be decreasing. That would lead me to believe that the number of units to rent has increased. Somehow the logic of constructing a large number of new rental units in order to improve the number of nights existing homes are rented escapes me. I found Mr. Leland's presentation interesting. There seemed to be one glaring omission. Sunriver is busy for two and one half months in the summer, a week or so at Christmas, Spring Break/Easter, and somewhat on MLK and Presidents Day. I heard not one suggestion of how our tourist season would be lengthened. With Mt. Bachelor's cutback of Spring skiing activities, Sunriver, I have been told, is feeling the impact of fewer Spring visitors. Will this trend help support a larger mall? There are attempts being made to mediate the differences between the two opposing sides. A mediation session to be heard by a judge is scheduled for May 16th. My hope is that nothing will be decided by you until the results of that meeting are known. It is the hope of many of us in opposition that a compromise acceptable to SilverStar and the opponents can be reached. If that proves impossible then I will reiterate my opposition to SilverStar's proposal as presented. The density and the proposed sixty and one seventy-five tall buildings are not in keeping with the original vision of Sunriver. We did not choose to move here to be overwhelmed by the glitz of an upscale shopping mall/condo development. Gary Gehlert 6 Lodgepole, Sunriver 4/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Janet Gehlert [jgehiert@chamberscable.com] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:55 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall Ms. Payne and Board of Commissioners: Everyone (literally) agrees that the mall needs renewal, renovation, rejuvenation but I am astounded that so many who profess to love Sunriver actually like the idea of four and five story buildings! Such building height is not what Sunriver is about. Nor is Silverstar's proposed density of 22 units per acre. Can't the mall be "fixed" without turning it into downtown Portland? This issue has divided the community. Proponents, incensed by the failure of the land sale election, have organized with a vengeance. One even offered in an email of Feb. 27, to "help" people write their letters to the Board of Commissioners! "I will draft (your ideas) into a letter and you can cut-and-paste my draft into your email or letter." Name-calling, innuendo, accusations are rife; the atmosphere isn't pleasant at the moment. As far as I know, efforts to meet for the purpose of compromise have met, to date, with silence. And that is a shame because this is an issue which should be resolved here in Sunriver, not at the county level. As I mentioned in my letter to the Planning Commission, Silverstar's plan for an town center would be ideal in a new planned community. Homes could then grow up around it; homeowners would know what the core area was like. But to impose such an enterprise (as the artist's conception in The Bulletin of April 27) on an existing, low - profile community is unfair. And how is adding even more rentals going to hep those homeowners who complain that they aren't getting the business they ought to have? Informal observation (based on my experience with summer bike path congestion) tells me that we have the same number of tourists we've had since I've been living here (ten years). With the increase in number of rental units, naturally nightly rentals are spread over a larger area. Our bike paths, swimming pools, and roads are congested now. What will it be like with 400+ new housing units? Who will be expected to pay for increasing recreational capacity? We live in a resort community and expect (and enjoy!) the tourists. But increasing their numbers past the point the infrastructure can bear will surely make life here less enjoyable. Property owners have never had the opportunity for input. We, personally, like living in the woods; we like the quiet, the (relatively) dark nights, the slow pace, the way the homes melt into the trees. We like the fact that nature appears to take the forefront in Sunriver. A development of the magnitude of Silverstar's will undoubtedly change those amenities. Please do not grant Silverstar's zoning request. Let us who are directly concerned with the impact of their plans work for a compromise. Respectfully, Janet Gehlert "Getting and spending, we lay waste our pow'rs; Little we see in Nature that is ours..." -Wm Wordsworth 4/28/2008 1115 Pine St Richland WA, 99354 March 25, 2008 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Suite 200 Bend OR 97701-1960 Re: Input for the planned April 30, 2008 County Commission Public Hearing on the Sunriver Town Center proposal Dear Commissioners: My wife Susan and I have been Sunriver home owners since 2001. We are deeply concerned with and have been actively engaged in the hearings, meetings, and other discussions concerning the Town Center development proposed for the area currently occupied by the Sunriver Mall. We appreciate the extensive opportunities provided by the Deschutes County Commission to attend hearings and provide written and oral input on this issue, and we have done so on several occasions. I hope, therefore that we will not stretch your patience too far by reviewing some key points for the Commission to consider in your evaluation of the requested zoning waivers. I want to first emphasize that we are not opposed to the mixed use concept for updating the mall and our goal has never been to stop the Town Center project. Rather we and many others who oppose the current proposal seek changes in the proposal to moderate its most extreme provisions and the impacts we fear would result. The proposed Town Center project is fundamentally a high-rise, high-density real estate development which is unprecedented and totally inconsistent with the architectural and ecological character that has been rigorously maintained in Sunriver since its inception almost 40 years ago. Although the hook for this proposal is "saving the mall", no credible evidence has been provided that the Town Center would significantly improve the long range prospects of businesses in the mall. Regarding the extreme height and density of the Town Center proposal, it should be noted that the Fremont Crossing development which abuts the Mall was successful at about 6 units per acre based on two story condos. If the commercial element of the Town Center is viable, it should stand on its own without subsidy by the real estate part of the proposal. Why then are buildings up to 80 ft tall at a density of 22 units per acre "essential to the financial feasibility of the Town Center" as claimed by the developer? We also are concerned about precedents that would be established by the Town Center development. Although language in the zoning waiver proposal states that the current waivers are intended only for the Sunriver mall redevelopment, we suspect that approval of the zoning waivers could put substantial pressure on the Board and the Commission to extend such waivers to other areas of Sunriver, and perhaps even more broadly to other rural communities in Deschutes County. Of particular concern is the proposed change discussed by the SROA Board at their March 8 meeting that would allow the developer to "take credit" for SROA open space adjacent to the proposed Town Center. Is there a precedent in county codes allowing a developer to "take credit" for a neighbors' property to fulfill an open space requirement? This proposal is absurd and should not be seriously considered. Finally, we note that Sunriver owners have been repeatedly assured that the zoning changes are just the first step and that numerous opportunities for public input will be provided in subsequent steps of the review and approval process to resolve the remaining issues. Unfortunately, in view of the past inflexibility of the developer and the SROA Board to consider compromise in any significant manner on the Town Center proposal, we are not confident that skeptical Sunriver owners can or will have a significant impact on the progress of this proposal once the zoning waivers have been approved. We respectfully request, therefore, that the Commission consider increasing the required open space to substantially more than the proposed 50%, reducing the building heights by at least one floor, and decreasing the unit density to at most that recommended by the Planning Commission in the January, 10 2008 hearing (18 units per gross acre). Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jaidaho@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:03 PM To: Board; Mike Daly; TammyBaney@co.deschutes.or.us; DenisLuke@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Sunriver Mall: file # PA -07 and TA -07-6 Julie Cohen Anderson PO Box 3187 Sunriver, Oregon 97707 (541) 593-7693 jaidaho@aol.com April, 27, 2008 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, I am writing you to voice my concerns about the "Sunriver Town Center Project" File # PA -07-6 and TA -07-6. I have been a home owner in Sunriver since 1994 and a full time resident since 2002. Like most Sunriver residents, I would like to see improvements to the mall area. However, like many, I have numerous concerns about the proposal as it stands. I am strongly opposed to such radical changes within Sunriver. The issues of density, height, parking, limited setbacks and limited open space all need to be addressed. The impact this project will have on traffic congestion, recreational facilities, fire safety, evacuation, view protection and light pollution are all serious concerns that have not be adequately resolved. The Deschutes County Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny Silverstar's application with the unit per acre density they are seeking and with the reduction of retail space they applied for. it was only after reducing the density and increasing the retail space that the proposal was sent on to you. Now, Silverstar is asking for the original numbers in these areas. Shouldn't this new proposal be sent back to the Planning Commission again? Silverstar's proposal is not a "mall revitalization" plan. It is a hotel/condo development. And, it is clearly illegal according to the provisions of the Sunriver Consolidated Plan. I urge the commissioners to turn down this proposal as it stands. Send it back to the Planning Commission. The SROA Board of Directors, Silverstar and the residents of Sunriver should be able to find a plan that is a true mall revitalization but still in keeping with environmental philosophy of our most special community. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Julie Cohen Anderson 4/28/2008 Page 1 of 4 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:07 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: Board Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, Thanks again for all your hard work, even on Sunday! I did notice the inclusion of the initial vote without any changes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2008 and I do appreciate it. I also appreciate you taking the time to answer all of the e-mails and to try to keep everyone informed. See you Wednesday, Don Hutchison Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:16:19 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Don: The applicants are not required to incorporate the Planning Commission recommendations into their proposal and it is not uncommon for applicants to argue against staff or Planning Commission recommendations. I incorporated the Planning Commission recommendations into my staff reports for the work session and first public hearing and discussed the recommendations at both meetings. I specifically noted that a straw vote showed a recommendation for denial without the proposed conditions. I will continue to keep the Planning Commission recommendations as part of the discussion. I understand that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue and will work to keep everyone informed as we continue through this process. Thanks for taking the time to get involved. Terri From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:52 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: Board Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Thanks Terri, I do have a question: as the conditions from the Planning Commission - specifically those related to density and commercial space - have not been incorporated into the current proposal revision submitted by the applicant, SilverStar Destinations LLC, what has been communicated to the County Commissioners as to the recommendation from the Planning Commission? As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail we feel that the approval recommendation is now invalid as the related conditions have not been incorporated by SilverStar. The 4 to 3 denial recommendation should be the one advanced to the Commissioners with the current proposal (or at the very least a no recommendation decision as the Planning Commissioners did not have the opportunity to vote on the current adjusted proposal). As you stated "At this point, the main ideas have not changed dramatically" which is most dissappointing when you look at the months and months of written and verbal testimony, the stated concerns of the Deschutes County Planning Commission, the recent land sale ballot results that shows that the previous comments from the SROA Board about "overwhelming" support and the land sale being a "certainty" were inaccurate, as well as showing the 4/28/2008 Page 2 of 4 results of the independent poll commissioned by SilverStar and presented to the Planning Commssion and the community that showed 95%+ approval for their proposal was also very inaccurate. With all of this we had hoped that SilverStar would have modified their proposal to be more accommodating to the concerns of all of the Sunriver citizens but, as you stated, the main ides have not changed dramatically. Thank you again for all your time and effort on this complex application. Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane, Sunriver Co -Founder SaveSunriver.org Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:19:36 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Don: The Planning Commission requirements have not been dropped, they are still on the table for consideration. I will be working with the Board to find a way to address those requirements in code. The constant changes are certainly confusing, but are mostly tweaking around the edges, some to ensure County concerns over implementation are met, some to address applicant or SROA concerns based on the recent vote. At this point, the main ideas have not changed dramatically. I appreciate how tricky it is to follow this process. Please feel free to call me if you need more information. Thanks! Terri From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:12 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: Board Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, Thanks for the information. As for the minimum commercial requirement the posted Planning Commission Draft Decision states : Space available for 120,000 square feet of commercial to be retained during project phasing, not committed to other uses Has this minimum requirement been dropped, has the commercial requirement been entirely dropped as your earlier e-mail would suggest? Also if the commercial requirement as called for in the draft decision, as well as the limitation on density (as you stated in your previous e-mail the density is at the originally requested 22 units/acre not the reduced amount called for in the draft decision) would this not invalidate the 6-1 approval recommendation from the Planning Commission and the 4-3 denial recommendation as initially voted before the conditions were included (and those conditions have been dropped from the current text amendment under consideration before the County Commission) be reinstated? At the very least there should be no recommendation forwarded from the Planning Commission to the County Commissioners as the very text amendment not only does not include the substantive conditions as called for by the Planning Commission as a condition of their approval vote. Additionally this is largely a new proposal that the Planning Commission did not get to review, take public testimony on, nor did they deliberate on the current proposal and text amendment as currently before the County Commissioners. Thank you for your help with this. As you can imagine the continually fluid nature of this proposal, 4/28/2008 even after 8 months from the first hearing, make this proposal very challenging to follow. Don Hutchison Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:30:12 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Don: The residential density calculations have not changed and as far as I know will not be changing. The minimum of 85,000 sq ft commercial requirement is in the agreement with the SROA and is not part of this text amendment. I do not know the existing commercial square footage outside of SilverStar's property, but it is a good question. You would need to contact the SROA on how that works. Thanks, Terri From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 6:04 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, One more question: The original proposal called for a minimum 85,000 square feet of commercial space (with a subsequent condition by the planning commission to increase this amount). Now that SilverStar is not acquiring all of the commercial areas within the Sunriver Mall area how does this restriction now stand? Is it still at 85,000 square feet with the existing commercial structures counted toward the minimum required space? If so do you know the existing commercial square feet outside of the SilverStar owned property? Thanks, Don H. Subject: RE: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:33:13 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Mr. Hutchinson: For this text amendment, the density has not changed, it remains at 22 units/acre. The number of units would go down if they are going to apply that density to a smaller acreage, but it is the units/acre we are considering at this time. The height has not changed either, the proposed language remains. The applicant will be submitting a final version of the code language in the next few weeks, but I do not anticipate changes to either of those sections. There will be at least 20 days for the public to review the final language, and we will schedule another public hearing to provide the public a chance 4/28/2008 Page 3 of 4 Thank 4/28/2008 to comment. There will be a staff report prepared that will list the changes to the text so you don't have to compare word for word to understand what changes. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks! Terri Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-1404 Fax (541) 385-1764 terrip@co.deschutes.or.us From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:59 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver SilverStar: Town Center Zoning Proposal Terri, I am trying to completely understand the updated proposal from SilverStar and was hoping for your assistance. As to density and number of allowed residences what is in the current proposal? Also, in reviewing some of the wording I saw reference to building heights being from the ground to the highest point of a building. Has this changed or does the measurement criteria - the one that included the grade measure that used the Portland complex grade language - as well as the 10 foot allowance for architectural elements still remain? Thanks, Don Hutchison Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Richard Hansen [dickhansen@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:25 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Mall Re -zoning Application REF: File No. PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 REF: File No. PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Thank you for taking public comment regarding the proposed re -zoning of the Sunriver Mall. We have been a Sunriver homeowner since 1974 and OPPOSE the proposed re -zoning of the Sunriver mall to allow development of an urban, high profile, high density "Town Center District". While we fully support efforts to refurbish and/or re -build the mall, the requested zoning changes go far beyond any reasonable redevelopment objectives and are inconsistent with the heritage and long established vision for Sunriver. The proposed "Town Center District" totally violates the Sunriver planning concept, and is not consistent with previous land use precedents and agreed upon operational and planning documents such as the current SROA Mission Statement, CC&R's, Consolidated Plan, Long Range Plan and strategic studies. Sunriver was never intended to be a high density, high profile, urbanized center of commerce, nor was it ever intended that it be a retail anchor for south Deschutes County. Sunriver has achieved an enviable level of success and should be allowed to continue to grow and prosper under established zoning provisions, normal business cycles and market forces. Sunriver does not require this radical re -zoning. Further, there is a real possibility that the re -zoning, if implemented, will also establish a significant negative precedent that directly threatens retention of what we know today makes Sunriver unique and special. Any re -zoning actions that so totally ignores and fundamentally changes established community standards by allowing development of a high profile, high density, urban "Town Center District" could be further used as a spring board to similarly redevelop other portions of Sunriver, and may even threaten encroachment of the river, the meadow, the golf courses, etc. The very character and nature of Sunriver is at stake. We have previously paid a premium to live in and enjoy the well thought out vision of Sunriver. We must not now forsake our long established and time proven standards and values. We urge the Planning Commission to respect, preserve and maintain what Sunriver is, and has long been noted for, by maintaining the existing Sunriver zoning regulations. We respectively request that the Deschutes County Planning Commission DENY the applications for plan amendment PA -07-6 and text amendment TA -07-6. Dick and Jean Hansen John Hansen 3 Doral Lane, Sunriver 4/28/2008 The Town Center zoning proposal before you is a significant request. It is asking for the creation of a zone that allows for heights and densities, along with exceptions from current regulations (such as view protections, solar setbacks, and parking minimums), so great they are not found in any existing zoning within Deschutes County. The densities and heights being asked for are not found anywhere outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries. Sunriver certainly does not qualify as an area that is suitable for changes intended for an urban area. The proposal before you is simply bad public policy for Sunriver and for Deschutes County. The facts are clear that Sunriver owners are divided as to this current proposal. The record also clearly shows that owners in Sunriver would like an upgraded and better maintained mall. The question comes down to the scope of the development, or redevelopment if you will, of the proposal. This proposal is far too great in its scope. As a community we must act more respectfully and cautiously when it comes to enacting changes that would have such a dramatic affect on the very nature of Sunriver and what it has stood for over the past 40 years. As recently stated by Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planer, regarding the Town Center zoning proposal "At this point, the main ideas have not changed dramatically" which is extremely disappointing. Much has happened since the first Work Session in September of 2007: months of written and verbal testimony, the stated concerns of the Deschutes County Planning Commission, the recent land sale ballot results that shows that the previous comments from the SROA Board about 'overwhelming" support for the proposal and the land sale being a "certainty" were inaccurate, as well as showing the results of the independent poll commissioned by SilverStar and presented to the Planning Commission and the community that showed 95%+ approval for their proposal was also very inaccurate. With all of this it was hoped that SilverStar would have modified their proposal to be more accommodating to the concerns of all of the Sunriver citizens as well as the Deschutes County Planning Commission. However, most unfortunately, they have not. The most notable change that SilverStar has made to date is hiring a new consultant and changing their approach from that of Sunriver as a ski resort to Sunriver as an urban renewal area. Neither approach is appropriate for Sunriver and this change in approach does nothing to address the major issues with this proposal - namely that it is far out of scale for Sunriver. Sunriver is not a major urban center and using approaches that may be appropriate in those types of settings within Sunriver is clearly inappropriate. The major issues with this proposal are still identified as primary concerns within the February 27, 2008 Staff Report are: The densities are too high: The density amount called for within this proposal, 22 units per acre, is far too high for an urban unincorporated community such as Sunriver. The very reason Sunriver was first envisioned was to create a place in harmony with nature where families could escape the urban settings and enjoy the open spaces. Proposing densities only found within urban growth boundaries is not appropriate for Sunriver. This point was the main factor in the Deschutes County Planning Commission's original vote to deny this application. The allowed building heights are too high: The heights that would be allowed under the proposal, along with the standards for measurement and allowances, would create buildings in excess of 85 feet. With most buildings, the "mixed- use" designation, being 70+ feet high (the heights referenced include the allowed 10 foot allowance for structural elements at the top of each building - the grade measurement rules being proposed would allow another possible 10 feet above the lowest site grade). These heights allow for buildings that violate the goals of a blending with the natural environment that has been the cornerstone for all development within Sunriver since its inception. They would actually permit the construction of buildings that would give Sunriver the greatest collection of buildings over 60 feet of any city east of the Cascades. The exceptions to parking requirements are too great: The current proposal calls for changes to the current parking requirements within both Deschutes County and Sunriver. It must be remembered that within Sunriver, unlike other parts of Deschutes County and the resorts that SilverStar has referenced to defend these new minimums, there are alternative parking areas. Namely streets and ski area parking lots. Sunriver does not allow for on street parking and Sunriver is not at a ski resort and therefore does not have access to a ski resort's parking facilities. The demands on the existing infrastructure are too great: Sunriver's current infrastructure, pools, paths, and parking, are already overstressed and extremely crowded during peak periods. Adding almost 10% more residences to Sunriver in such a small highly congested area would only increase the current challenges. Increased Fire Safety Issues: The increase in density and heights within the small Sunriver Mall area increases problems with fire safety - both the potential for fires and the difficulty with a safe and efficient evacuation. In conclusion, after almost 8 months from the first work session on the Town Center zone creation application much has been learned and much has stayed the same. We have learned that the Sunriver owners are very split on the current plan from SilverStar with respect to the Village Mall area. The SROA special election held on February 15, 2008, was the first, and to date only, opportunity for owner's opinions to be definitively expressed. Unfortunately all of the Planning Commission hearings took place before the results of the special election were known. Commissioner Pace even stated for the public record during the January 10, 2008 deliberation meeting that she "would like to wait until after the election to make any decision". Moving forward on the hearings and deliberations related to the application before the special election made it very difficult for the Planning Commission to judge public sentiment. What has stayed the same is the SilverStar proposal. While there have been modifications to the proposal at several times throughout the process the core items have stayed the same. Density, heights, parking limits, and other key items have remained virtually unchanged. All this is in spite of the hundreds of letters and additional public testimony given over the months of Planning Commission hearings requesting a more moderate proposal, and in spite of the Planning Commissions own stated objections to the high density and limited requirements for commercial space and concerns over parking, and in spite of having the results of the special election showing that almost 50% of Sunriver owners did not approve of the current proposal's scope. We are still reviewing essentially the exact same proposal that was first submitted by SilverStar eight months ago. This stance of no changes has divided the community and put us no closer to a plan that would update the mall while still respecting the important characteristics of Sunriver that make it so special to everyone. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners deny the current application from SilverStar to create the Town Center zone as proposed. It is not good public policy for Sunriver or Deschutes County. Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane, Sunriver a Salem Co -Founder SaveSunriver.org Page 1 of 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: JHas100295@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:04 AM To: Board Cc: Terrip@deschutes.or.us Subject: Sunriver Town District Plan and Text Amendments April 28, 2008 To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Terry Kirk and John Haskell Residents at # 3 Gosling Lane Sunriver, Oregon 97707 Re: Sunriver Plan & Text Amendments PA-07-6/TA- 07-6 We are writing to express our concerns about the proposed plan and zone change submitted by SilverStar Destinations to create a Town Center here in Sunriver. Our understanding is that the question before you is "Whether the proposed amendments are good policy for the Sunriver community and for the County". Although the statement was made at the April 9 work session that the requested text amendments are only for creating a zone change, it clearly appears that it is also project driven specifically for the SilverStar development. We specifically OBJECT to the following text amendments, as we do not feel they reflect good policy: 1) SOLAR SETBACKS 18.108.020(B) - If there are not any solar setbacks within the town center, then the result could be dense corridors with no sunlight, thus creating issues with ice in the winter and a closed in atmosphere in summer. The main street that would go through the Town Center runs north -south, effectively little sunlight would fall in that corridor. There should be more thought to providing solar setbacks within the complex. 2) 18.108.055 HEIGHTS - I would seem inappropriate to build any building in Sunriver up to 75 feet, effectively five (5) stories. This totally clashes with the current development of Sunriver, which has a rural atmosphere, not a urban atmosphere. If buildings were built to heights of 75', or even 60' (4 stories), the visual impact would be a monster in the middle of a forest setting. Better to look at the maximum height of the Sunriver Resort of 55' which blends in better with the environment in Sunriver. We could better support the Town Center District if there were stricter restrictions on the height of the structures. 3) 18.108.055 DISTRICT SETBACKS - There are strong concerns, even expressed by the Sunriver SROA, to 5' setbacks, especially along the main road through the Town Center. It would create a very narrow corridor where people would be walking, shopping, parking, etc. while at the same time traffic would be moving. There should be greater set backs in areas where there will be heavy traffic use. 4) 18.108.005 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - The plan for overall 22 units/gross is far too dense. It is even next to impossible for a lay person to understand how units are counted, as the plan speaks of" 1 unit" then ".05 units" for some hotel and lock off units. Just how many housing units are they talking about?? When SROA and SilverStar were unsuccessful in selling the 6.3 aces of homeowner common land, it appeared that SilverStar would have to reduce the number of units of housing they could have to maybe 375 units. But this shell game makes it appear there will be a considerably higher number of units. We recommend the Commission clarify the actual number of sleeping units and consider reducing the density to around 375 units. One reason the sale of Sunriver owned land did not pass is because of this very issue of density. 5) 18.108.005 PARKING - Reducing the parking requirement while at the same time creating a highly dense development does not make sense. If the developer really wants to draw people into the Town Center, then there needs to be more ample parking, not less. Already parking is a problem in highly popular seasons, not only in the mall area but also in the already existing residential areas, and is one of the biggest complaints registered by permanent residents. Parking needs to be sufficient to accommodate not only the tourists/renters but also residents from outside the center. 5) 18.124.070 SITE PLAN MINIMUM STANDARDS - The Town Center should not be exempt from providing outdoor private 4/29/2008 Page 2 of 3 space or shared space for residential units. If the exemption is allowed then the residential area will have a very closed in feel and no "green" space. Require the developer to provide some green space for the residential units, even if it is only a row of trees. URBAN VS RURAL - We note that the Planning Commission in some of their summary statements make comments that requests made by the developer are "not uncommon in urban style developments". We recognize that Sunriver is classified as an "Urban Unincorporated Community" by County Code. But in looking at Sunriver it is clear that it sits in the middle of a very RURAL forested area, not next to a city center. This rural setting is the beauty of the place that some of want to preserve. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - We are also concerned about the ENVIRNONMENTAL IMPACT of such a dense development in the midst of our rural community. Although the developer's documents mention people arriving by "shuttle, car pool" etc. the fact of the matter is that this does not happen in our remote community. There is no mass transit, no shuttle from the airport, no shuttle service within Sunriver, no means for people to arrive except by cars, with very little car pooling. Thus, this proposed development will impact our community with increased automobile traffic and delivery trucks, causing noise and fumes and congestion on our private roads. It appears the only traffic study that was done was regarding the County roads (Century) and Highway 97. A study of the impact on Sunriver's private roads and circles needs to be done. VISION STATEMENT - This proposed development is also in conflict with the SROA's draft "Sunriver Community Vision 2008" and with surveys conducted in past years of the desires of Sunriver homeowners. All emphasis the need for more permanent residents, but this development is clearly focused on the short time rental transit market, including hotels and fractional ownership. SilverStar's proposal should set aside part of their development to be designated "full time residential - no rentals allowed" and the SROA should be asking for the same if they are true in their desire to increase full time permanent residents. SilverStar used statistics that the rental market in Sunriver has declined, using the declining mall area as one of the reasons. But how does adding 375+ housing units, basically targeted for rentals, help the situation? WATER & SEWER - There is already on file a letter from Sunriver Water LLC, Environmental LLC stating that their current facility cannot handle the increased demand of such a large development. See their letter dated December 31, 2007 on file with the Planning Commission. For some reason the Planning Commission has ignored this letter as they state "uses allowed under the proposal will add residential components to residents uses but not to a level that will exceed the capacity of the current systems". FIRE DEPARTMENT- Our Fire Department has likewise stated that the do not currently have the capacity to fight a fire in a high rise building as being proposed by SilverStar. Even if the developer buys the fire department a bigger truck, that truck would not be able to navigate the small circles it would have to drive through in Sunriver!! The Sunriver community is clearly located in a wild fire area. Although the Planning Commission states "the adoption of the Tourist Commercial district will not materially alter the danger presented by wildfire", we beg to differ. Adding both high rise buildings and a density up to maybe 500-600 units full of people DOES present evacuation problems! RECREATIONAL NEEDS - Again the Planning Commission states that "the proposal will not result in excessive demand for activities that would create the need for more facilities -- the proposal will enhance the opportunity for people to use the existing facilities". We find this to be an irresponsible statement as we all know that many of the existing facilities currently being used are already overtaxed at peck seasons. For SilverStar, and the Planning Commission, to state that some hundreds more people can be accommodated in our current facilities is to ignore the impact to all of us who already live and try to use the facilities. The developer should be held accountable for providing adequate recreational facilities for the units he is building - or kick in $$$ to upgrade and expand Sunriver's current facilities. There are many outspoken and powerful homeowners who favor this zone change and development. They are the same group who now call themselves "Citizens For Sunriver", but essentially they are the same group who supported the failed land sale. Many of those are associated with Real Estate firms, Chamber of Commerce, Mortgage Companies, Rental Companies, SROA and some of the business owners. There are business owners who do not support this development but are no doubt in a position where they can not speak out. Likewise, it is often quoted that "56%" of the homeowners supported the recently proposed land sale. In reality, it is 56% of only those who CAST A VOTE (1,783 votes). There were 3,192 ballots cast out of 4,214 mailed ballots. Thus 1,022 chose NOT to vote - 24% - for whatever reasons. There were 1,401 NO votes. Thus 1,401 against the land sale and 1,022 who did not vote = 2,423 homeowners who did not vote for the land sale. Tricky math - somewhat like the above referenced density math. In summary, we ask that if the Commissioners so choose to approve SilverStar's request to change the zoning to create a Town Center district, that it do so ONLY WITH MODIFICATIONS to height, density, parking, open space, set backs and clarification of water, sewer and fire fighting capacity plus an analysis of the environmental impact. Thank you for considering our written concerns and allowing public hearings. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: JesLScottSR@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:12 AM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver zoning Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, I wish to express my strong support for the SilverStar efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed- use development in the Sunriver Mall. I have been a home owner and full time resident of Sunriver since 1990. In the 18 years that I have lived here, there have been many changes in Sunriver, and most have been very positive. SROA has done a very good job of maintaining and upgrading the roads, pathways, and recreational facilities that we all enjoy. Sunriver Resort has also made many improvements to the amenities under their ownership. The Sunriver village and mall was for a number of years a center for activities, events and shopping and was always an enjoyable place to visit for residents as well as tourists. However, for the past 10 to 12 years, the mall has suffered from lack of maintenance and activity which has resulted in a high vacancy rate. Business on the mall is very seasonal and the proposed residential units would help to economically support the merchants on a year round basis. The majority of Sunriver property owners support the upgrading and rebuilding of the mall. In a number of surveys done over the past few years, the number one item as stated by the owners has been to "improve the mall". i and many property owners that I have discussed this with believe that this a wonderful opportunity to finally see the mall rebuilt and brought up to the standards of the rest of the community. I strongly urge that you approve the requested zone change. Betty A. Scott P.O. Box 3598 Sunriver, OR 97707 541-593-1851 Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: M.K. Maguire [mmaguire37@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:11 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: TA -07-6 Date: April 28, 2008 From: Marcia Maguire E-mail address: mmaguire37@yahoo.com To: Members of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Re: TA -07-6 I have owned my home in Sunriver for ten years and am a permanent resident. I respectfully request that the Commissioners make the following changes to SilverStar Destinations' LLC (SilverStar) proposed text amendments (TA) for the new Town Center district zone. The new zone as defined in the text is not good public policy, especially good public economic policy, for Sunriver and Deschutes County. 18.108.055—Zoning for the Town Center. Uses. Residential use may refer to (a) residences intended to function as short-term overnight lodging and (b) residences used solely by owners. SilverStar's TA emphasizes overnight lodging. The TA must define the different uses for "residential" structures. Currently, Sunriver has an oversupply of residences used as overnight lodging. For individual residences used as overnight lodging, number of days rented annually is in decline. Sunriver needs housing reserved for permanent residents. SilverStar claims its goal is to increase the number of residents. Its TA accomplishes the opposite with its TA increasing the number of overnight lodging units. Because of the current oversupply of overnight lodging, this increase is not good public economic policy. TA must specify the ratio of residences used by owners to residences used for overnight lodging. The ratio must favor residences used by owners. Height. SilverStar's TA allows heights up to 75 feet. Sunriver's code limits heights to 30 feet. The height limit of 45 feet harmonizes with heights of existing structures adjacent to the Town Center district or located in Sunriver's other areas. The height limit of 45 feet is most appropriate for the majority of structures in the Town Center zone. If allowed, TA must specify for structures with heights of 45 feet the percentage per total area. SilverStar's TA allows heights of 60 feet for mixed use structures with no limit on the number of mixed use structures. According to SilverStar's TA, most of the Town Center's structures could be 60 feet tall. Grouped together, these buildings will loom over walkways, roads, trees and dominate Sunriver's skyline. If allowed, TA must specify for mixed use structures with heights of 60 feet the percentage per total area. Residential Density. It is impossible to calculate residential density using SilverStar's TA. SilverStar's TA count some units as .5. TA must be consistent and count each residential unit as one unit. SilverStar's TA allows densities greater than any allowed outside an urban growth boundary. Density of units should be in harmony with other residential densities within Sunriver. The density should be substantively scaled back from SilverStar's TA. 4/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 Green/Open space. SilverStar's TA does not refer to Green/Open Space. Town Centers are designed to reinvigorate struggling urban areas. Town Centers focus upon energizing street life and commercial activities. Sunriver and its outlying communities focus upon enjoyment of the natural environment, its serenity and beauty and its wildlife. Since its inception in 1968, Sunriver's focus has been upon the natural environment. TA must emphasize open areas/green space with use of area/space limited to natural landscaping. TA must specify for areas/green space the percentage per total area. During the Board of Commissioners 4/9/08 meeting, SilverStar's consultant Dave LeLand (Leland Consulting Group) stated that fifty per -cent of all town centers fail. Town Centers need: 1.L arge populations including large numbers of permanent residents. These populations reside adjacent to and nearby urban Town Centers and exist before the development of a Town Center. Sunriver and its outlying communities do not contain these large populations. To succeed, SilverStar's Town Center must create these large populations. Can a relatively small development accomplish such a monumental task? 2.L ocation adjacent to major transportation routes. Sunriver is located away from its highway. Traffic from Southern Deschutes County uses the highway for access to Bend. To succeed, SilverStar's Town Center must pull traffic from the highway to Sunriver and must change consumers' shopping habits. Can a relatively small development accomplish such a monumental task? 3.L ocation with many attractions. These attractions draw residents and consumers to the Town Center and include theaters, museums, sports arenas, universities, galleries. SiverStar's Town Center must provide these attractions. Can a relatively small development accomplish such a monumental task? Please modify SilverStar's proposed TA. The Town Center zone as defined in SilverStar's TA is not good public policy for Sunriver and for Deschutes County. The Town Center district zone needs to be substantively reduced in density, height and scope. The numbers of residents and consumers required for successful operation of the new Town Center district zone must be substantively reduced. And thank you for your time spent on this issue and for allowing public comments. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: sjg9862@comcast.net Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:53 PM To: Board Subject: Public Hearing April 30/Silverstar request Dear Sirs, We would like to comment in opposition of the request to obtain variance from height, density, parking regulation etc. by Silverstar in the Sunriver Mall area. There was a vote only 2-3 months ago about this very issue. It is clear that many property owners here feel the development as planned is inconsistent with the concept and ambience of Sunriver. The vote clearly showed the discomfort of many, in spite of a very aggressive campaign by those with much to gain from the project. We received 3-4 times more mailing and information for the project than against, received phone calls from realtors and property managers pushing a yes vote, and now pushing us to attend hearing and encourage this project. In spite of all this it lost the vote. The project has been represented as something it is not, and we have even been told our property values depend upon its completion. This project appears to our reading to be a dense housing project with a bit of updated retail space. Overdense housing, buildings higher than current restrictions, inadequate thought to parking and traffic flow (which very likely will require solutions that the property owners rather than developers will bear) are inconsistent with the kind of environment we were promised when we bought our home here. It should not be the right or privilege of a well funded small group to twist facts, misrepresent projects, and push upon us something that will change the very nature of this resort community. When the vote was held, my wife and I had a discussion about what would happen if the vote really went no in spite of the onslaught and push for a yes. I opined that likely they would bring it back again and again until they wore the opposition down, or would find a new way to get what they want. We are hoping you will have the courage to prove this wrong. Steve Gorton/ Laurie Heuermann Skyline 8 Sunriver, Or. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: SOS [sos@sunrivertelecom.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:36 PM To: Board Cc: B Adelman Subject: File Numbers PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Ms. Hansen Payne has advised in an e-mail dated April 13, 2008 that a hearing subsequent to the one set for April 30 will be scheduled to allow for further public comment. The purpose of this communication is to urge that the second meeting to receive public comments be scheduled for late June or, better yet, July. I. About 80% of Sunriver Owners do not Reside in Sunriver and Should be Given an Opportunity to Appear and Testify in Person. This matter before the Commissioners is highly contentious and of great interest to the owners. Thus, the Sunriver Scene, the official publication of the SROA, stated in its March 2008 issue that there was a 75% ballot return with respect to the vote which defeated the land sale for the development, a percentage which "eclipsed participation in all previous SROA elections by a wide margin." About 56% of the voters favored the sale (the SROA stated that 60% approval was required under the Sunriver Consolidated Plan), with about 44% opposed. The last analysis by the staff planning of which I am aware indicated that the mail and comments received were about evenly divided between supporters and opponents. With the ballot measure itself owners could include a brief statement as to their position. My count was that the comments by opponents substantially exceeded those favoring the development. As far as I am aware, there has been no recent development which would have significantly shifted owner sentiment. I think it quite safe to say that the owners remain about equally divided. Unfortunately, however, the tone of the controversy has taken a decided turn for the worse, with an increased exchange of invective, personal attacks, threats, and the like. It is common ground that only about 20% of owners reside in Sunriver and also perhaps common ground that the maximum number of owners should have an opportunity to appear and be heard. These facts — a very contentious issue, great public interest, a closely divided community, and the fact that 80% of us don't reside in Sunriver — argue for at least one public meeting at which non-residents are likely to be present, i.e., during the summer school holidays. I discuss below a second reason why this proposal seems sound. II. There is a Possibility of Reaching a Community -Wide Consensus on What Should be Done. The writer and his wife sued the SROA and SilverStar, contending that § 3.06 of the Consolidated Plan forbids residences in the Mall. That suit is pending in the Deschutes County Court. The suit is widely supported by the opponents of the SilverStar proposal, and obviously, opposed by those on the other side of the issue. The defendants asked if we would agree to non-binding judicial mediation, we concurred, and mediation is scheduled for May 16, 2008 before Presiding Judge Lipscomb of the Marion County Court. Judge Lipscomb directed each of the parties to prepare "a proposed road map" as to settlement; each party was to have persons present at the mediation having "full settlement authority"; and the parties were told to be prepared to "stay as long as necessary to complete the settlement" (emphasis by Judge Lipscomb). I cannot say whether a settlement of the litigation will result, but it appears to me that since this mediation is a voluntary and expensive process, all the parties are serious about compromising and are proceeding in good faith to 4/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 reach a compromise. Indeed, the parties are exchanging relevant documentary information, as well as legal memo on their positions. If a settlement of our litigation did result, it would very likely be one acceptable to a substantial majority of the owners on both sides of the mall issue, and would, I think, diffuse the situation. It would greatly simplify the proceedings by the Commissioners, and would probably eliminate the possibility of appeals to LUBA, or the courts. Put shortly, I believe that a settlement of our § 3.06 claim would, as a practical matter, substantially end the controversy. A unified community would be much preferable to the present contentious proceedings. I urge that the Commissioners delay the second public hearing until, say, six or eight weeks beyond the scheduled mediation date of May 16 so that the mediation process can best proceed. Sincerely yours, Herbert Adelman 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Elizabeth Vandehey [evandehey@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:16 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver revitalization Dear Commissioners, I am very excited about the plans for the revitalization of the Sunriver Mall! We have been going to Sunriver since the early 1980's, and it has been very sad to see how the mall has declined. We now are part owners in a home over there, so we shop at both grocery stores, go into the bookstore, get coffee and ice cream, and eat at or order from the restaurants.. There have been some lovely shops there in the past, but they never lasted long. Sunriver needs to update itself to be competitive with other resorts in the area. Improving not just the physical part of the mall, but also the services: a pharmacy, barber shop, beauty salon, would be wonderful for those who live there year round. I wholly support the plan and look forward to the NEW Sunriver Mall! Sincerely, Elizabeth Vandehey Portland, OR 4/29/2008 Message Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bob Sessler [bob@genstartech.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:23 PM To: infosroa@srowners.org Cc: srscene@srowners.org; Terri Hansen Payne; Board Subject: FW: The Mall/Towncenterl Original Message From: Bob Sessler [mailto:bob@genstartech.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:16 PM To: 'Info@SaveSunriver.org' Cc: 'badeiman@comcast.net Subject: The Mall/Towncenterl To whom it may concern, It seems to me that Mr. & Mrs. Adelman are more interested in a personal vendetta against Mr. Harder than over the merits of a new mall. The Adelman's seem to believe as Silver Star that a new mall is essential to Sunriver and only viable with a residential component(one of the solutions proposed by the Adelman's as long it is Sunriver Resort doing the developing.). Yet without any figures or study of a scaled down mall they are sure it is still a viable alternative. This mixed use approach is being used successfully across North America in cities and resorts i.e Los Angeles, Pasadena, Brea, Whistler, Mammoth Lakes etc.to revitalize decaying centers. So since both parties agree on the solution, what is all the acrimony really about? Adelman's prefer the Sunriver Resort owners over Mr. Harder. So what if another lawyer prefers Mr. Harder or another developer over the resort and wants to get in the fray. This is supposed to be business. Will we continue on another personal vendetta? So I am totally confused why the Adelman's are so vehemently opposed to the mall and willing to let the decay continue for years. His alternate proposals are based on rumors and heresy on having another alternative. Silver Star is here now ready to move forward. I think the potential developer line forming behind Silver Star is extremely short if not non existent. This lawsuit and effort is also strange coming from someone who only spends a few weeks in Sunriver a year and admits not visiting the mall/town center. This again raises the question of the main purpose of this lawsuit that is also costing every property owner in Sunriver money. Is this lawsuit really for the good of Sunriver? The Adelman's have nothing concrete in the wind. The only thing the lawsuit accomplishes is the continued decay of the mall and a lot of money being paid to Attorneys. I wouldn't call this progress! Not to mention the fact that you talk about going back in time to litigate the Freemont Crossing development. What does that accomplish? I know...more attorney fees! Best regards, Bob Sessler 8 Big Leaf bsessier@roadrunner.com My wife and I visit the mall often. If everyone was like the Adelman's there would be no mall and nothing to litigate over because they evidently don't support the businesses located there. That leads me back to the personal vendetta. How can someone get so worked about about something one never uses? I'd love to know the real reason. Protected by Spam Blocker Utility 0 Click here to protect your inbox from Spam. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Larry Weber [Iweber@georgefox.edu] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:34 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Silverstar porposal hearing 04.30.08 Thanks, Terri for your informative and timely response. I will have folders made up for the Board Secretary and You. I hope the Commissioners are of the understanding that 80% of the owners in Sunriver are non-resident owners and can not travel to mid -week hearings to put a voice and a face to their opposition to this proposal. The owners in opposition have been portrayed by Silverstar and our Board as a ' small vocal minority' throughout this entire process and hearings...yet you have hundreds of letters on file in opposition and the February Ballot outcome that Silverstar and our Board was dependent upon and most likely will downplay with small talk and a show of local' support....failed to materialize when the Official Vote had nearly 1500 owners vote NO to the land sale and changes to our Consolidated Plan. I am one of 11 nonresident owners on Elk Lane...others are from Puget Sound area, the Tri Cities area, Nehalem, Medford, and Damascus and all are tied to jobs in their local communities. Regarding the April 9 meeting it was my understanding that no testimony was to be taken...so I did not make the trip over. Now, I am traveling nearly 200 miles just to attend this public hearinq...I hope consideration is given to allow those of us who are traveling to have 'our time' before the Commission'. Larry D. Weber Assistant Professor of Education School of Education George Fox University Home Office: 503.658.5658 Cell Phone: 503.887.2398 FAX: 503.658.6168 From: Terri Hansen Payne[mailto:Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Mon 4/28/2008 8:58 AM To: Larry Weber Subject: RE: Silverstar porposal hearing 04.30.08 Mr. Weber: See answers below. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Terri From: Larry Weber [mailto:lweber@georgefox.edu] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:59 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Silverstar porposal hearing 04.30.08 Importance: High Terri, I plan to make the drive from Portland to Sunriver to testify on Wednesday, April 30th. And, I am preparing testimony in written form that I plan to present in person. I have some documents (selected pages from the Consolidated Plan for Sunriver, Sunriver Board Discussion Minutes, and Silverstar Height documents) that I wish to provide the Commissioners for reference during my testimony...I am putting together a file folder with the documents for each of the Commissioners that I will share with them at the onset of my testimony. I have a couple of questions about the hearing and some additional questions from issues surrounding this whole process...that at the least seems very confusing...and I was a past Community Association President with some experience on land use issues. 1) Do I need to prepare more than 3 folders? That is, do I need any additional folders for the record, staff or the developer? You would need an additional copy for the Board secretary and ideally one for me to add to the record. I will make a copy for the applicant. 4/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 2) How much time will I have to present my testimony? The usual amount of time is five minutes, but the Board could allow more time or less depending on how many people sign up to speak. 3) How will the sign up be handled for the testimony? That is, do we need to sign up prior to the meeting..lf so at what time will someone be at the Great Hall? You will need to sign up. They have sign up cards from the April 9 hearing that they might take first. I haven't checked with the Board secretary, but I will be there by 5:30 p.m. at the latest, probably sooner. Personal Commentary: I must admit I am astonished that the Commissioners are hearing this proposal at this time. It would seem that with the Owners defeat (February 15, 2008) of the Board sponsored sale of common areas and any changes to the Consolidated Plan for Sunriver...this thing would have at the least been sent back to the Planning Commission....if not the our Association. The County process is not tied to the SROA vote. The applicant has not withdrawn their proposal, so our process requires it to go forward. Will Staff be providing those in attendance an update of just what this most recent Silverstar request is and how it has changed since September 27, 2006? Specifically addressing changes to density, heights, and open space... The County was not involved until 2007, so that would need to be done by the SROA. Since we have been reviewing this proposal the density, heights and open space have not changed. The definition of open space has changed, but that was a technical change to make it easier for staff to implement. What about the changes that Silverstar agreed to before the December 13th hearing before the Planning Commission? And what is the status of the 5 conditions that the Planning Commission required of Silverstar that caused them to reverse their straw vote to 'deny'? The changes agreed to by SilverStar are included in the version that the Board is considering. (except for the design guidelines which are internal to Sunriver.) One of the requested Planning Commission amendments, showing the parking on the conceptual site plan, has been added to the text amendments. The applicant objects to the other four. It is not unusual for applicants to object to either staff or Planning Commission recommendations. The entire Planning Commission recommendation has been discussed with the Board and will continue to be part of the discussion. How can Sunriver, a private self governing association, be held hostage to possible amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Current Zoning requested by an owner/ developer...when the owners in the association have defeated such changes (within the Association) and there is pending litigation against the developer and our Board regarding 3.06 of our Consolidated Plan...which is a legally filed document in the County? Many homeowner associations exist and govern various neighborhoods, but they are not official governments in the same way as a City, so jurisdiction falls to the County. The County process is separate from any internal Sunriver owners association decisions or lawsuits. Thanks for your reply, Larry D. Weber Assistant Professor of Education School of Education George Fox University Home Office: 503.658.5658 Cell Phone: 503.887.2398 FAX: 503.658.6168 4/29/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: John Herrick [jhunterh2001@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:40 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Mali Plan My wife and I are full time residents of Sunriver (#11 Pioneer Lane). We purchased our home here in 1995 and just finished putting over $250,000 into a remodel of that home. We moved here because of the environment which is typified by the trees, the good people and the quiet. Had we wanted to live in a, crowded urban area, we would have stayed in Portland. We very much oppose the mall expansion by Silver Star. It will take away that which attracts people to Sunriver. They do not come here for the shopping. They come here to get away. Please add this note to the stack of those opposing the Silver Star plan. Thanks, John Herrick John Herrick, Jr. 503.799.3580 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/; _yit=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 1 April 28, 2008 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners RE: Sunriver Mall Redevelopment Dear Board of Commissioners: I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the proposed mall redevelopment and to encourage you to deny the request to create a new Town Center zoning designation. The applicant and proponents of the redevelopment claim that the mall in its current state will bring economic downfall to Sunriver and its eventual demise. These claims are simply not true. Sunriver continues to receive awards and accolades for being a premiere resort destination in the Pacific Northwest — being named one USA Today's Top 10 Family Destinations for 2007 as well as awards in 2007 from Conde Nast Traveler, Travel & Leisure Golf and Golf Odyssey. Housing sales show continually increasing values and homes turn hands on a regular basis showing that Sunriver is a very desirable place to own property for both economic and leisure proposes. A zone change is not what the mall in Sunriver needs. It is a shame to think that in this era of conservation and "green" thinking that buildings which are no more than 40 years old must be leveled in order to "improve" the status of the mall. The mall has been a clean, well occupied, going business concern with the current zoning in years past. What has changed are the mall owners and lease holders. No business entity can be expected to thrive if the landlord is a poor steward of what they own and if the business owners fail to staff their establishments with competent, customer oriented workers. Is it not ironic that SilverStar who claims to care so greatly about Sunriver is letting the mall fall deeper into disrepair? Or perhaps it is a deliberate act of neglect to force public opinion to support a plan that is not the solution to the mall's problems. Please consider that a zoning which allows buildings taller than almost any tree in Sunriver and density that exists only in urban cities will not make the mall better. It will create an urban environment from which urban dwellers are trying to get away from. Please deny the zone change and protect the peace and tranquility of Sunriver. Respectfully yours, Marcey Keefer Hutchison, Fox 7 Lane Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tim & Joyce Seeley [timseeley55@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:46 PM To: Dennis Luke; Tammy Melton; Mike Daly; Board Subject: Re -Zoning at Sunriver To: Deschutes County Commissioners, We are writing to ask you to oppose the re -zoning of the Sunriver mall. Most Sunriver owners agree that the mall needs a face-lift. It's worn out. It needs updating, remodeling, and new construction. But please don't rezone the mall area in order to allow a too -dense housing development under the guise of a "mall." The stunning number of proposed condominiums and residential units has reduced the commercial mall footprint, with less space than ever being allocated to commercial ventures. As you are aware, Central Oregon is in the midst of a stagnant housing market with, some say, a 12-18 month inventory. To add 300+ homes to an overburdened housing market is unwise, even for resort communities at this time, which have also noticed more days on market for active residential listings, and dramatic slow downs in residential sales. The first quarter of 2008 was down 30% in Sunriver alone, over that of 2007. Permanent residents make up less that 12% of Sunriver's residents. There's no guarantee that the number of houses proposed (which could largely be unoccupied the majority of the year like the rest of Sunriver) will sustain a "vibrant" mall, or boost the mall's economic climate. The numbers of visitors to the entire Central Oregon area has experienced a decrease in recent years. So, the mall is not the primary deterrent for Sunriver's soft rental market at this time. Sunriver is a gem in the Pacific Northwest. Millions have come over the years to relax, recreate, enjoy all the natural features and attributes that Sunriver offers. Their destination is not just the mall and its attributes. Many Sunriver homeowners have chosen to invest in the area based upon the look, feel, amenities, quality of life, location, environment, etc. that Sunriver affords. It's what has been in place for 40+ years that has attracted many of us. We have been Sunriver visitors since the 1970's. And now we're homeowners. To put in place new zoning that will foster drastic change would be the wrong thing to do. Yes, after 40 years, there's understandable updating, remodeling, and reconstruction that's badly needed in the mall core. There is no question about that. But what many Sunriver owners object to is too many (300+) residential units, the 60 - 75 foot rooflines (the Sunriver Lodge is 54 feet high), the yet undetermined traffic and impact on Sunriver's infrastructure, etc. The re -zoning is unspecific and subject to interpretation. To allow an astonishing number of residential units in a mall core, while reducing the commercial mall footprint is the wrong policy for Sunriver. Sincerely, Tim & Joyce Seeley Pine Bough Lane Sunriver, Or. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jonathan Kahnoski [jkahnoski@sunrivertelecom.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:11 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne; ultimatewellness@ultimateone.net; Bergen & Jan Bull; David Lewis; Douglas Seator Subject: Public Hearing in Sunriver Good evening, Gentlelady and Gentlemen, and my compliments to you this evening. The steering committee of Citizens FOR Sunriver is lining up a large number of speakers in support of SilverStar's proposed new zoning definition. Naturally, we want both to make as strong an argument as possible AND to make our testimony flow more smoothly. We believe we have a workable plan to achieve this, and thought it would be wise to approach you prior to the meeting. We are organizing a number of speakers with a particular common interest to approach the microphone/table as a group with one or more designated to speak for the entire group. An alternative would be to have members of the group stand while the speaker (s) comes to the microphone. The "groups" we have identified to date are: 1.Prio r Presidents of the Sunriver Owners Association Board of Directors. 2.F olks who voted against the land sale but who are in favor of the scaled back proposal from SilverStar. 3.Resid ents of areas to the south of Sunriver who have a shopping interest in what happens with the Village and therefore Sunriver as a destination resort community. 4.Peo ple who currently work in Sunriver but do not live there. Our thought is that: 1.Hav ing a group stand up declaring their support from a particular perspective is more effective for our side. 2.Hav ing these folks "testify" as a group will make better use of the hearing time than having them come up one by one to make their statement, even if it is just to say "I agree with everything the others before me have said." "Mega -dittos", so to speak. The group would come forward with each person identifying themselves. Then, one or two or three (depending upon the size of the group and the number of different comments they wish to make) would speak for the entire group. Once all the speakers have had their say, all members of the group would return to their seats. Would this be acceptable to you? How would we initiate this without causing confusion on the part of the audience? Would this procedure limit the amount of time speakers would be allowed to speak? Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Jonathan Kahnoski #2 Paper Birch Lane Sunriver, Oregon Citizens FOR Sunriver 4/29/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bergen Bull[bergenjan747@chamberscabie.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:08 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall file #PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Commissioners Daly, Luke and Melton, My name is Bergen Bull and my wife and I have owned properties in Sunriver for the past 24 years. For the last 12 years, we have been full time residents. I have been affiliated with a non-profit organization for 10 years that has had offices in the Sunriver Mall. It has been painfully apparent that the prior two owners of the Mall were doing only the very minimum to keep the facilities operating. Nothing has been done to upgrade the buildings and grounds in decades. As a result, the facilities have deteriorated terribly. This lack of attention arguably led to the fire (faulty light socket) that burned the one building to the ground in 2006. This building is where the organization I am affiliated with had its office. As I am sure you have heard, four other buildings suffered extensive water damage this past winter leaving two buildings uninhabitable. I recite these facts with sadness as in the early years of our visits we enjoyed the Mall experience very much. I realize markets change. Bend now offers much of what the Sunriver Mall did in the past. As I said, markets change and unfortunately the prior two owners of the Mall did not recognize the changes going on or did not care and we now are left with a situation that needs drastic action. Fortunately, we have new owners that are looking to the future to bring our Mall and with it our community back to a competitive position in the Central Oregon resort community. Without remedy, this problem will continue and will detract from Sunriver's reputation as a tourist j attraction and as a desirable place to own property and live. My wife and I are very concerned about the future value of our property and desirability of Sunriver as a place to live and play. We became even more convinced when a new planned resort was announced to be located in North Klamath County which is just over 30 miles away from Sunriver. If we don't upgrade our village, we fear we will soon see vacation home investments, residential home investments, tourist dollars and sizable property and room taxes passing us by - going south on highway US97. We urge you to vote YES on Silverstar's zone change request for Sunriver. Bergen & Jan Bull 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tammy Melton Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:10 PM To: 'David Hansen' Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Hi David and Marsha - Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been forwarded for inclusion in the public record. In Partnership, -En KA_ vu.0 (F,9v,e) Mel -too, Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:01 PM To: Tammy Melton Cc: 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; 'Richard Hansen' Subject: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner: Those of us in Sunriver who question the necessity of utterly changing forever that which has drawn untold thousands to Deschutes County, are at a distinct disadvantage in generating supporting testimony. We do not have access to email addresses of all owners in Sunriver. A substantially large number of owners do not reside full time here. Mailings are extremely costly and on an equal access basis, email addresses used by those supporting the proposed development should be provided to opposition groups to ensure a balanced view for the purpose of making an informed decision. Despite what I have been told is "hundreds of emails in favor and very few against" received by the commission, I would like to point out that during a recent ballot measure (at one time considered by Silverstar to be essential) failed to pass and exhibited an almost even split between Sunriver property owners. Not coincidentally, this highly contentious issue generated by far the largest turnout for a vote in Sunriver history. Therefore it can be extrapolated that if an opposition group had equal access, the Commission may very well have equal or greater email and/or other types of testimony in opposition to the proposed redevelopment. It is because of this lack of access, that we must rely on the Commission to assist the citizens who own property in Sunriver. Please, at the very least, delay any decision that would change Sunriver from what the County and original developers envisioned forty years ago until all owners, including absentee owners have received all information from both sides in order to make an informed decision. Thank you for your consideration, David and Marsha Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver, Or 5/1/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Ken Hascall [akhascal@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:11 AM To: Board Subject: Fwd: Disguised Sunriver Real Estate Development Please read my email to Mr. Daly. I strongly urge the board to help the owners here in Sunriver to defeat the SilverStar high rise condo development in our mall area. Revitalization if needed for the mall, but the proposal developed by SilverStar is not the answer. The owners opposed to this plan account for at least half if not more of all Sunriver owners. A number of us live here and do not want our heritage ruined by a few "real estate developers" that are truly not interested in what Sunriver really wants and needs. The SROA board has acted un -professionally in agreeing with the plan put forth by SilverStar without input from the owners. They do not represent the owners of Sunriver. Prior boards have looked to heritage and long term care taking as a part of their responsibility. Not this board. Please consider the opinions and desires of the entire Sunriver ownership, both resident and non-resident, in your decisions. Thank you, Ken Hascall Sunriver owner and resident since 1984. Note: forwarded message attached. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: M.K. Maguire [mmaguire37@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:50 AM To: Board Subject: New Town Center Zone. Many of us owning homes in Sunriver do not support SilverStar's proposal as it is presently defined in the text. Please reserve your support for the project. It would be most helpful if questions about the density, height, use and parking were answered before considering support of the project. Marcia Maguire Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Roger Smith [mandrgames@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:19 AM To: Board Subject: Sunriver SilverStar Proposal - VOTE NO Once again we write to you to let you know that SilverStar is back to their old tricks of continuing to ask the commissioners to vote on something that they still have not told the Sunriver Owners of what they really want to do. Oh yes they say they want to build a "vibrant village" for us, but let's be honest all they want to "build" is Residential units. They said they could not financially do it without the purchase of all the additional land, which as as you know was defeated by the homeowners 55-45. Now they are back with the same proposal that they said they couldn't do. SilverStar just never comes through on anything they say. The proponents still claim we (those against the proposal) are a vocal minority, I think 45% is a large minority, and that us "No nothing, want nothing" (as one of them calls us) owners...which we take offense to, really do KNOW and WANT improvement to our Sunriver Village, but not at the expense of HIGH rise buildings. We both believe that two story buildings are acceptable for condos, etc. But no higher...as there is NOTHING in Sunriver, with the exception of the Sunirver Lodge that exceeds a two story height. Exceeding the existing height requirements will just open the way to future developments in our community. We also do not need a Hotel in Sunriver. So if you need to approve this proposal please require the height to two levels, and continue to make SilverStar maintain the same amount of Commercial space we currently have and provide parking for all these additional units...and maintain at least a minimum 15-20 foot set backs from Abbot & Beaver & South Century Drives We know we can count on the County Commissioners to do the right thing to help keep Sunriver the premier destination location that it has been for over 40 years. People love this place because it is not an URBAN renewal! Roger and Patty Smith 2 Lodgepole Lane PO Box 3236 Sunriver, OR 97707 4/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Weller, Mike [mweller@janicki.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:23 PM To: Board Subject: Support for Rezoning Sunriver Board Members, I am writing to express my support for Silverstar and their efforts to redevelop the Sunriver Mall. My wife and three children live in Washington State and vacation at our second home on Timber Lane in Sunriver. We love Sunriver !! It allows our young children a place run, bike, play, and explore. It allows my wife and I chance to relax and enjoy each other. I believe that approving the requested zoning changes will be of great benefit to Sunriver. Having lived in Seattle and traveling to places that have allowed targeted high density development, I know that these environments work. I truly enjoy spending my time in these types of developments and it will encourage me and other seasonal residents to continue to support Sunriver. Some people will always oppose change, but nothing in our built environment ever remains stagnate. Sunriver will change no matter what the outcome of the current rezoning — redevelopment process is. Instead of trying to patch up a development conceived 40 years ago, we should use all of our gained knowledge and shared experiences to make something better. We all have a unique opportunity to shape what Sunriver will be in 40 years from now. Please support the requested zoning changes. Sincerely, Mike Weller 1035 Joanna Lane Camano Island, Wa 98282 4/30/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tammy Melton Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:00 PM To: 'Richard Hansen' Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Sunriver Mall rezoning REF: File No. PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Hi Richard, Jean, and John - Thank you for your emails; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, both of your emails have been forwarded for inclusion in the public record. In Partnership, wt -wt. (gawe�) Mel,tow Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: Richard Hansen [mailto:dickhansen@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:26 PM To: Tammy Melton Subject: Sunriver Mall rezoning REF: File No. PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Dear Commissioner: We have been a Sunriver homeowner since 1974 and oppose the proposed re -zoning of the Sunriver Mall to allow development of an urban, high profile, high density "Town Center District". While we fully support efforts to refurbish and/or re -build the mall, the requested zoning changes go far beyond any reasonable redevelopment objectives and are inconsistent with the heritage and long established vision for Sunriver. The proposed "Town Center" totally violates the original Sunriver planning concept, and is in direct opposition with previous homeowner agreed upon operational and planning documents such as the current SROA Mission Statement, Consolidated Plan, Long Range Plan and strategic studies. And, as evidenced by the recent failure of the SROA proposed land sale to SilverStar, a significant percentage, certainly over one half, of Sunriver homeowners are against such a radical change. Sunriver, from the start, was never intended to be a high density, high profile, urbanized center of commerce, nor was it ever intended that it be a retail anchor for south Deschutes County. Sunriver has grown and prospered for over 40 years, has achieved an enviable level of success, has provided a significant return on investment and should be allowed to continue to grow and prosper under the established or little changed, zoning provisions. The mall itself will not succeed because of its association with an urban complex, but will grow and prosper only by providing goods and services subject to normal business cycles and market conditions. We have previously paid a premium to live in and enjoy the well thought out vision of Sunriver, and now must not forsake our long established and time proven standards and values. Sunriver does not require this radical re -zoning. We, and a significantly large number of homeowners, think we need to search for other mall update alternatives, or at the least, significantly scale back the current rezoning request. Changing the Sunriver Mall into a high-density, high-rise condominium community 5/1/2008 would fundamentally change Sunriver. It is safe to say that few, if any, of the current 4,100 owners bought and moved to Sunriver because of the mall or the hope of living in or next to multiple -story condos. We invested in Sunriver because it was a special place, far away from urban development. We now find ourselves faced with a high density, high profile urban development right at our core. The very character and nature of Sunriver is now at stake. We urge you and the the Deschutes County Commission to respect, preserve and maintain what Sunriver has long been noted for by maintaining the existing zoning regulations for Sunriver, or at the very most, make only minor changes and adjustments. We therefore respectively request that the Deschutes County Commission deny the current application for plan amendment PA -07-6 and text amendment TA -07-6. Dick and Jean Hansen John Hansen 3 Doral Lane Sunriver 5/1/2008 Page 2 of 2 Commissioners, I am Dinah Finney. My husband and I live at #2 Mt. Baker Lane, Sunriver. We have been permanent residents for the last seven years and have owned a second home here since the late 1980's. My husband and I feel fortunate to live in this resort community and are active and involved citizens in the SR Community. There are many issues to the "rezoning" that have been put before you. I personally have no problems with the issues of height, density, open space, or the design of the Town Center, as I am confident Sunriver and Deschutes County codes have the appropriate controls in place, along with Sunriver's best interest. I am here to address an issue that is of great concern and very near and dear to my heart, that is the economic impact to Deschutes County if the rezoning is not approved. We are surrounded by pockets of poverty. As most resort communities, the people who service our needs such as housekeepers, yard maintenance, restaurant workers, and grocery store clerks come from these surrounding areas. Many resort jobs are seasonal and minimum wage but, at least they are jobs! Many of us in Sunriver believe we have a responsibility to this community and give tremendous amounts of financial assistance, time and energy to improve the financial, medical and social needs within the surrounding areas of greater Sunriver. An example is the immeasurable amount of volunteer hours and nearly a half million dollars of financial assistance given each year. This amount does not include the thousands of dollars given to families through the monthly are & Share Food Program or the Community Christmas Sharing Program which also provides food and gifts to families in the 97707 zip code. If the rezoning is not approved, many of those who are recipients of our giving will lose in additional ways: 1. More fulltime residents will seek other communities in which to move to 2. Jobs will decrease 3. Non -Profits within the community will struggle while competing for the same funds for worthwhile local charities 4. Many of our youth at Three Rivers School will remain in the life cycle of poverty 5. Other issues related to poverty will continue to grow I urge you to approve the "rezoning request" as Silverstar has proposed. I trust that with your approval, and the support of this community, we can make a difference in the poverty issues surrounding us by providing more jobs, income, incentive and hope for our neighbors. Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Peg & Joe Upton [peg.joe@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:25 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: sunriver development FYI. Thanks for listening... Uptons From: Peg & Joe Upton [mailto:peg.joe@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:55 AM To: 'Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or.us' Subject: sunriver development Commissioners for Deschutes County I wish to express my concern about the "village" development plans, as proposed by Silverstar for Sunriver. I certainly support the refurbishing of the village—I certainly do not support the plan as presently laid out. I trust that we are not in a situation where one must accept the entire plan in order to improve the village. 1 bought my condominium, Wildflower 14, many years ago so that my family could enjoy a "cabin in woods" vacation experience in Oregon. With the present Silverstar plan, I will surely lose that experience. I could comparatively stay in a hotel in Portland. Joe and Peggy Upton Wildflower 14 425-316-9418 home phone 4/30/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tom Anderson Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:29 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: No to updated mall proposal From: Mike Daly Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:20 AM To: 'dwynn37@hotmail.com' Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: No to updated mall proposal Mr & Mrs Wynn, I have read your email and look forward to the public hearing tonight. See you there. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: dwynn37@hotmail.com [mailto:dwynn37@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:04 PM To: Mike Daly Subject: No to updated mall proposal Dear Mr. Daly and the County Commission, I am not in favor of Silver Star's proposal for Sunriver Mall. Specifically, a residential density of 22 units per acre. This is way out of character and inconsistent with Sunriver's mission to remain a unique community that keeps it's open spaces natural. As such, Sunriver's most valuable asset is its common ground, which should never be for sell. One hundred residential units for the entire mall should be the limit, without tall buildings that block the trees and sunshine. The extra traffic would add to the increasing amount of autos that already clog the roads in the summer and holidays. The mall was meant to be nearly exclusively for retail space, so let's keep it that way. Perhaps if the owners of the mall would not force so many retailers out of buisness with their excessive rents, the mall would be more vibrant. I also think Silver Star and SROA leadership are ignoring the concerns of Sunriver homeowners who voted against the land sale. They are not interested in the aforementioned views and are trying to strong arm their agenda. Thank you for your consideration, David, Charles and Beverly Wynn Sunriver homeowners since 1989 Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize! 4/30/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: STU2966857@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:23 AM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Zoning change We are owners of a condo at Sunriver and we are against SilverStar's request to and hope that you will deny their request to change the zoning of the village mall area. We need to keep the zoning as it is and not to allow such high density, Tess open space, and building height. We feel that SROA is not representing our views as owners. We have written then. We voted against the land sale and we are definitely against zoning change. Betty & Don Chaffin Quelah # 71 Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. 4/30/2008 April 29, 2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Laura Harvey [retreats@sunriverretreats.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:08 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: mark@villageatsunriver.com; dbrannan@chamberscable.net Subject: DES.COUNTY COMM.MALL MEETING 4-30-08.doc Attachments: header.htm April 29, 2008 Deschutes County Commissioners and County Administrator Dennis Luke, Tami Melton, Mike Daly Dave Kanner 1300 N.W. Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701-1960 Re: Sunriver Mall Town Center Zoning # PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Dear Dennis, Tami, Mike and Dave, Sunriver is the heritage of this County and Central Oregon. Sunriver in a large part put Central Oregon to work at a Time when even Central Oregon had a failed economy. Sunriver put Central Oregon on the map and on the map it will stay as the Premier Resort Community in the Pacific Northwest with your Approval Vote of the Town Center Zoning. Vast Improvements are the only Alternative! We are now asking the Commissioners to protect the Sunriver Community from our Failed Mall and our Failing economy. Bend and La Pine residents used to come to the Mall. Visitor's want attractions, shopping, things to do when they vacation. Sunriver and near by residents need the same. The Town Center must be rebuilt. We do have those distant and near owners who are Blinded to the daily functioning of Sunriver and the surrounding Communities. Most skeptical owners come here as Tourists to visit their homes, so their interests and concerns revolve around their personal vacations. They do not need a Heart for the Sunriver Community. If they really want an old failed mining community or abandoned cowboy ranch atmosphere and setting, without services, a population or an economy, they can go to Thousand Trails in their luxury motor coaches, or Shaniko, or the wilds of Alaska. South County, on the other hand functions under reality in the here and now. Tourism keeps this County, and Sunriver alive and vibrant, with an economy and infrastructure that is necessary to our daily lives. Tourism, with its many facets is crucial in this County and its decline has brought all of the resulting negative aspects with it. Affecting golf courses, Mt. Bachelor, Vacation Rental business, Home Sales, Retail, Business in general, room taxes, and everything else here and is physically evidenced by empty Vacation Rental Homes, Buildings both in the Business Park and Sunriver Mall, excessive For Sale / For Lease signs and declining County and SROA Revenue among other evidence. A wonderful mixed use New Mall would change all of the above, re -new interest in Sunriver and give visitors an enticing reason to return to Sunriver. After all, Mall Shopping is the American Pass time. An example of this result is all of the Resort Town Centers in the United States that Mark Smuland of SilverStar has worked on and the Quaint year round Town of Leavenworth. Sunriver is my home and my Community and only the Commissioners can now provide its Future Viability and Economy, with the New Town Center Zoning Approval. Residential must be an incorporating Factor in this Wonderful New Mall as proposed by SilverStar Development! That is our only issue here, not to be distracted or derailed by the Vocal Minority. Only the Vocal Minority wishes to intentionally Destroy our Community and Economy. Only the opposition injected twisted, irrelevant seeds into the Process for self-aggrandizing personal reasons of power. Only the minority does not want to realize that Residential would be good for Sunriver and the viability of the Mall merchants. Only the minority says that the residential would be all rentals, which they appear to oppose, even though none are involved in the vacation rental home business! 5/1/2008 April 29, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 Only the Vocal Minority gives no thoughts to other people, to new Amenities, activities for children and families, activities for teens, as they voted against the Land Sale! They voted against the Sunriver Owners, which makes no qualifying sense at all! They blindly followed the distortions of an egotistical, maniacal Tort Attorney that lives in Virginia, who is driven by unacceptable, non-negotiable demands for our Community. One who has not submitted one positive Asset to the process. One who comes to Sunriver as a Tourists. One who does not speak for me, or the welfare of our Community. One whose way of life is to initiate fabricated legal actions for sport. One who wishes to install himself as King of Sunriver. One who has never run a business. One who operates under Delusions of Grandeur and total self interest along with his other unimaginative affiliates. The Heart of Sunriver presently has Town Center Approval, initially with 1,000 residential units Approved by Deschutes County, with abandoned Condo units in the 2nd stories of the present Mall buildings. We ask for this new Zoning Approval and permission to proceed with the process, so that we can start planning for our futures and the future of Sunriver. There are no alternatives available to us! Personally, I wish to move into the New SilverStar Town Center to live and play in the New Town Center Mall with my Friends and Tourists during my Golden Years. in order for me to accomplish this, I urge you to Expedite this Process, and cut out further delays as time is flying by. I have been a multiple Home owner in Sunriver for 23 years, resident and non-resident, builder of homes in Sunriver and Vacation Rental Home business owner. I also know the original Mall Owner / Developer and know of the original Plans for the future of Sunriver. SilverStar Development has gone through all phases of the Planning Process with eminently Qualified Consultants and Town Center experts. There are Processes and Formulas that they are qualified to speak on and Design, in order to build a successful project that we, as laymen, are Neither familiar with nor qualified to speak on. I wish the Commissioners to Accept the Plans of SilverStar as presented, and allow SilverStar and their expert Consultants and Designers to massage their own Plans, in order to bring the vast benefits to us that are needed in this Century! Most Sincerely and Appreciative, Laura E. Harvey C;c: Terri Hansen Payne, SROA, SilverStar 5/1/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: disclewis@chamberscable.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:15 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver As a resident of Sunriver, I would like to express to the board my opposition to the current attempt to re -zone our community to the benefit of a profit-seeking organization known as Silverstar Destinations L.L.C. My wife and I retired to Sunriver in November of 2006. We made this decision based upon what Sunriver is...not what it might be in a hypothetical "vision" put forth by Silverstar. Much of what Silverstar postulates does not pass the common sense test: 1. People will come to Sunriver to shop high-end boutique shops. Pure silliness. Visitors/daily renters come to Sunriver to ski in the winter; bike, swim, hike, and fish in the summer; or relax in this Central Oregon destination. They DON'T drive to Sunriver to go shopping. Permanent residents (such as ourselves) do not and would not shop in Sunriver (excepting groceries on occasion). Bend is where most residents go for grocery, clothing, sundry items, etc. Sunriver cannot and will not be able to compete with Bend. 2. Real Estate values will increase for current Sunriver property owners with the "new and invigorated" mall/village. Not realistic at all. With the proposed additional hotel and condos that Silverstar wants, our real estate values will drop. It is supply and demand, pure and simple. The more properties available, the lower the price. People wanting to invest in a second or third home in Sunriver will have much more to choose from and many will choose the newer condos rather than homes that are 10, 20 or 30 years old. The competition for finding renters will also be much harder for the current home owners that rent their places because there will be so much competition that they will have to lower their rental prices in order to keep them occupied. 3. Traffic problems. The traffic problems will be much worse than we currently face and deal with during peak visitation times. When there are special events, it is a traffic nightmare to get to the event and then find parking. With the additional number of units that Silverstar is proposing, it will be virtually impossible to drive to the mall, find parking and then want to shop or attend a special event. 4. Fire hazard. As with any increase in housing and people, there is a higher risk of fire. We are concerned that there would be huge traffic jams trying to evacuate Sunriver should a fire occur. There are only two roads entering/exiting Sunriver and with the proposed number of additional homes that Silverstar wants, there would be more people and cars trying to leave than could safely evacuate. 5. Silverstar's unrealistic allotment of units (condos) vs. vehicle housing (garages or parking spaces). Living amongst rental houses, we see the true number of vehicles "housed" at the rental homes. Each house has a minimum of three vehicles and some of the larger ones will have between five and seven. It is unrealistic to "allot" a four bedroom condo only two parking spaces. 6. The extra demands on the infrastructure. With all the additional housing proposed, we believe it will put too much pressure on our current systems which would mean paying for additional sewage treatment plants, new water systems, new roads, more police and firemen etc. Things are currently well balanced between nature and humans...we don't want to see more humans at the cost of nature. Who does this proposal actually help? The developer ONLY. They will make all their profits from selling the condos and running the hotel (which will be in direct competition to the lodge) and the residents/home owners will be the losers. With them owning the mall, they can and will charge ANY price they want for any business that tries to rent from them. How will that help the current businesses if the rent is higher than what they are currently paying? 1 Finally, another consideration is the economy. We have already seen a drop in the number of renters this winter from a year ago. With gas prices soaring, food costs rising and the downturn/slowing of the economy, is it truly wise to allow this rezoning in order to allow Silverstar to build all these extra condos and buildings only to be left vacant due to a falling housing industry. The mall would then be in no better shape than it currently is with many of the shops vacant. We ask that you please consider all sides to this problem. We feel Sunriver is beautiful the way it is. Please don't let a money -hungry corporation ruin Sunriver's pristine condition. There is nothing wrong with Sunriver. Please don't allow the zoning to be changed for Silverstar. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott Lewis 15 Poplar Sunriver disclewis@chamberscable.com 2 20 Cluster Cabin Lane Sunriver, Oregon 97707 April 27, 2008 Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Ms. Hansen Payne, This written testimony states our opposition to the amendments requested to the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to create a set of regulations for a new Town Center district in Sunriver, Oregon. File numbers: PA -07-6 and TA=07-6. The majority of homeowners in Sunriver oppose this residential development in our Town Center. The mall area of Sunriver was never intended for residential use. The strength of the opposition can be seen in the vote against the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) Board's land swap deal with Silverstar Destinations. The fact that so many Sunriver property owners voted "no," when most people would generally follow their elected board members, should indicate how strongly people oppose this new plan. Many of us feel we have been misled by our elected SROA Board members. We believe the Board members have breached their fiduciary duties to the Sunriver owners. We believe there are better ways to improve the mall area than to allow hundreds of new residential units. We are convinced that the proposed development will lead to overcrowding of the roadways and bike paths and ruin the Sunriver mall area. Please deny Silverstar Destinations' requested Plan amendments. Thank you for considering our strong opposition. Sincerely yours, )2141,4t- Helen '1 -Helen L. Mazur -Hart. and. Stanley F. Mazur -Hart Property owners of Cluster Cabin #20, Sunriver, Oregon 9 707 rips 3 .G. 200; Page 1 of 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: Larry Weber [Iweber@georgefox.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:35 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Silverstar porposal hearing 04.30.08 Terri, I left my previous e-mail attached to the bottom of this message to recall questions that I had before driving 200 miles to testify at the Public Hearing before the Commissioners last night. ...as a reference point. Would you please explain to me just what was that that I experienced last night'? Since when is a public hearing called where the applicant is not prepared with a completed proposal for which to the public is to testify? And, how much longer are we going to have to listen to the same old unsubstantiated cries of "The Mall is in such bad shape"... "1 remember to glory days"..."I'm so ashamed..." "Sunriver is dying.." All comments that beg the question...lf things are so bad in the Mall... "Why is it that the County and Sunriver Code Enforcement people haven't been out there to shut the place down for the safety of all of us who still patronize it?" I suppose you are by now sensing my frustration! I prepared testimony, organized it for a succinct presentation before the Commissioners, traveled over 200 miles...arrive and I am told this that the text amendment that I came to testify about continues to be amended and that the testimony most likely will not matter as we do not yet know the applicant's 'completed' amendments. That is why when time came I limited my testimony and had 'slipped' my five prepared written testimony folders to the Board secretary before my call to the microphone. Needless to say I was very disappointed to have put that much preparation into my testimony and made the trip for what appears to be 'nothing!" Now, another convenient for the residents of Sunriver...entered into the public record last night ( 1 guess???) as at '12% and declining' of the number of owners and...most difficult for the non-residents of Sunriver...the remaining 88% of us, meeting has been called for Wednesday, May 14th at 10:OOam. This continued process seems to favor the testimony of the minority of stakeholders in this proposal. Isn't that contrary to the intent of public testimony on issues of public policy? Before I alter my schedule again at the University to make the trip over to Sunriver or Bend to once again attempt to testify in the matter...Please, I need to know... How will I be notified of the applicant's 'completed' proposal? When can I be expecting this notification? And, how much time will I have to respond to the 'completed' proposal before the scheduled public meeting? As I sat there last night, heard the gasp of the audience (the 12% or less of the owners), and the Applicant's concerns when Staff recommended leaving the public testimony Open until July 31 st...It just brought back emotions about how the applicant and our Board have tried to 'push' this proposal through the Owner's review and the Planning Commission review without regard to the best interests of the Sunriver owners who must live next to this thing that now is being thrust upon us as an 'urban renewal district'...which is considerably different from the 'mountain village vision' that was first thrust upon us. And, not only will I have to live with this thing...it appears that whatever form this 'moving target' takes it will eventfully be trust upon other unsuspecting 5/1/2008 Page 2 of 3 unincorporated communities in Deschutes County. Thanks for reading my frustrations this early Thursday, May 1st morning after that 'what ever that was I attended last night' meeting and before I must make the drive back to the Valley. I continue to appreciate your responses to my questions. Please know that my frustration is not directed at you or Staff...however, you are the only source for 'straight' answers in this matter of interest to me and my family. Larry D. Weber Owner, #9 Elk Lane, Sunriver Mailling address: 13788 SE 180th Ave Damascus, OR 97089 Assistant Professor of Education School of Education George Fox University Home Office: 503.658.5658 Cell Phone: 503.887.3298 FAX: 503.658.6168 Iweberageorgefox. edu From: Terri Hansen Payne[mailto:Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Mon 4/28/2008 8:58 AM To: Larry Weber Subject: RE: Silverstar porposal hearing 04.30.08 Mr. Weber: See answers below. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Terri From: Larry Weber [ma ilto: lweber@georgefox.edu] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:59 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Silverstar porposal hearing 04.30.08 Importance: High Terri, I plan to make the drive from Portland to Sunriver to testify on Wednesday, April 30th. And, I am preparing testimony in written form that I plan to present in person. I have some documents (selected pages from the Consolidated Plan for Sunriver, Sunriver Board Discussion Minutes, and Silverstar Height documents) that I wish to provide the Commissioners for reference during my testimony...I am putting together a file folder with the documents for each of the Commissioners that I will share with them at the onset of my testimony. I have a couple of questions about the hearing and some additional questions from issues surrounding this whole process...that at the least seems very confusing...and I was a past Community Association President with some experience on land use issues. 1) Do 1 need to prepare more than 3 folders? That is, do I need any additional folders for the record, staff or the developer? You would need an additional copy for the Board secretary and ideally one for me to add to the record. I will make a copy for the applicant. 2) How much time will 1 have to present my testimony? The usual amount of time is five minutes, but the Board could allow more time or less depending on how many people sign up to speak. 3) How will the sign up be handled for the testimony? That is, do we need to sign up prior to the meeting..lf so at what time will someone be at the Great Hall? You will need to sign up. They have sign up cards from the April 9 hearing that they might take first. I haven't checked with the Board secretary, but I will be there by 5:30 p.m. at the latest, probably sooner. Personal Commentary: I must admit I am astonished that the Commissioners are hearing this proposal at this time. It would seem 5/1/2008 Page 3 of 3 that with the Owners defeat (February 15, 2008) of the Board sponsored sale of common areas and any changes to the Consolidated Plan for Sunriver...this thing would have at the least been sent back to the Planning Commission....if not the our Association. The County process is not tied to the SROA vote. The applicant has not withdrawn their proposal, so our process requires it to go forward. Will Staff be providing those in attendance an update of just what this most recent Silverstar request is and how it has changed since September 27, 2006? Specifically addressing changes to density, heights, and open space... The County was not involved until 2007, so that would need to be done by the SROA. Since we have been reviewing this proposal the density, heights and open space have not changed. The definition of open space has changed, but that was a technical change to make it easier for staff to implement. What about the changes that Silverstar agreed to before the December 13th hearing before the Planning Commission? And what is the status of the 5 conditions that the Planning Commission required of Silverstar that caused them to reverse their straw vote to 'deny'? The changes agreed to by SilverStar are included in the version that the Board is considering. (except for the design guidelines which are internal to Sunriver.) One of the requested Planning Commission amendments, showing the parking on the conceptual site plan, has been added to the text amendments. The applicant objects to the other four. It is not unusual for applicants to object to either staff or Planning Commission recommendations. The entire Planning Commission recommendation has been discussed with the Board and will continue to be part of the discussion. How can Sunriver, a private self governing association, be held hostage to possible amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Current Zoning requested by an owner/ developer... when the owners in the association have defeated such changes (within the Association) and there is pending litigation against the developer and our Board regarding 3.06 of our Consolidated Plan...which is a legally filed document in the County? Many homeowner associations exist and govern various neighborhoods, but they are not official governments in the same way as a City, so jurisdiction falls to the County. The County process is separate from any internal Sunriver owners association decisions or lawsuits. Thanks for your reply, Larry D. Weber Assistant Professor of Education School of Education George Fox University Home Office: 503.658.5658 CeII Phone: 503.887.2398 FAX: 503.658.6168 5/1/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Debbi Lessard [debbi.cpa@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:24 AM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Village Revitalization Dear County Commissioners — I am a homeowner in Sunriver, Camas Lane #20, and I would like to let you know that I am in support of Silver Star and their plans to revitalize The Village Mall. I was just at the Village Mall last weekend and I feel strongly that if someone doesn't get in there and make some major changes the mall is going to not be a place where our renters even think about going to, as there won't be anything there to go visit. As a result the property values in Sunriver, and the surrounding area, are going to drop and it isn't going to be a resort anymore. Renters and Homeowners will go someplace else! Thanks for your time, Debbi Lessard Paulson & Lessard, CPAs, PC 733 NE Fourth Avenue PO Box 731 Camas, WA 98607 Email: debbi.cpa@comcast.net Phone: (360) 834-4911 Fax: (360) 834-7700 CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Any tax advice included in this document is neither intended nor written to be used, and cannot be used, to avoid penalties that might be imposed on the taxpayer. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by replying to this message or by telephoning us. Thank You. 5/2/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: FORREST CARTER [susancarter3@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:00 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Zoning Dear Commissioners; As a Sunriver Home Owner I would like to send you a few questions to ponder while you are considering the zone change of Sunriver. I understand the need to update the Mall and develop a thriving business environment. As a home owner since 1991 and having lived in Sunriver for five years and experiencing the "have to" move to Bend for a reasonable quality of life. I view the present condition as a result of the leadership in Sunriver for the last twenty years. Most are retired and are getting older. They let the High School die and have not attempted to provide another one. Are they hoping that more retired folks move into the area and set up businesses because no younger -generation X'er would move out there, set up a business, have a family and than start having to car pool to a Bend High School 20+ miles one way. It is a very cumbersome process as well as a hardship for the majority of students and families that currently live there. It is an everyday occurrence to travel to the high school three times a day for activities practices; drama, sports, concerts. I had to take my children's college fund to purchase a home in Bend to support a High school education. Before you allow them to move forward take a deeper look down to the foundation of what will bring business owners into Sunriver and it isn't just a new Mali. They need the basic's for their families and that means a reasonable option for a high school education! Bend High and Summit High are 20 + miles one way, not to mention the gas expense. There is only a bus to take them to school at 6:30 and it takes them home when school is out at 2:40. There is no activity bus to Sunriver! They might as well as put out a sign stating "Older Retired Business Owners Wanted; NO Children Please! We don't Provide Education Opportunity beyond 8th Grade." Please present this very real problem to the committee's who believe a new Mall is the answer to all their problems. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Susan Carter Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize! 5/2/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Arnolds [patorken@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:38 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall Zoning mendment We have owned property in Sunriver for 11 years and have been full-time residents for 3 years. We are very much in favor of modifying the zoning laws to accomodate the Silver Star development. The mall cannot survive without mixed-use development. The majority of the comments at the meeting on 4/30/08 highlighted the fact that most property owners in Sunriver and the surrounding area are in favor of this zoning change. I think the planning commission should act on this information as soon as possible. Thank you Pat and Ken Arnold #1 Cypress, Sunriver 5/5/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:45 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: PA and TA 07-6 Public Hearing Terri, Thank you for the response. A meeting on the weekend would certainly allow for more involvement of the non- resident owners, which I might add pay most of the SR areas property taxes. We should get some say in the extensive changes this developer proposes that will in the end impact on our livability. Who made the decision to ignore the majority of the owners? Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com From: Terri Hansen Payne[mailto:Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 8:28 AM To: Merlyn & Linda Webster Subject: RE: PA and TA 07-6 Public Hearing Mr. Webster: You are right, the weather this spring has been very unexpected and the pass can be hazardous without snow tires. The venue change was right next door and it was noted on our website and the SROA website and signs were posted directing people who might have gone to the Homestead room to the Great Hall. I do not believe that the change of venue caused any problems. The hearing was continued until Wednesday, June 4th at 10 a.m. That is to allow the applicants to submit further amendments and the public to comment on those amendments. At that point, the Board will determine if the changes they are proposing are substantial enough to require going back to the Planning Commission or possibly to a joint meeting with the Board and the Planning Commission. The Board has received considerable written testimony and will continue to receive written testimony. As soon as the new language is received from SilverStar it will be posted on our website. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks! Terri Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-1404 Fax (541) 385-1764 terrip@co.deschutes.or.us From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [mailto:webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:15 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: 'Save Sunriver' Subject: PA and TA 07-6 Public Hearing Terrie, Hello: Hope the hearing last night went well. My planned involvement had a change of plans after I got a report that the pass was closed due to bad weather around noon. Had to remove studs a few weeks ago so couldn't make it safely over the passes. Snow late April who could have guessed and with all the global warming going on. I have to ask if the Notice of the Public meeting that was mailed by the County every got properly corrected with 5/6/2008 Page 2 of 2 the County's last minute change of venue? Also given that the developer still has not decided what he wants to do with the limited property he has available, will there be another public meeting for the non-resident owners that couldn't make it due to the bad weather and the poorly panned middle of the week hearing schedule? I'm sure the only attendees must have been the business locals and we all know business always wants more business. Let me know. Regards Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com 5/6/2008 SUNRIVER OWNERS ASSOCIATION MAINTAINING SUNRIVER AS A PREMIER RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT COMMUNITY PROTECTING AND ENHANCING ITS QUALITY OF LIFE, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PROPERTY VALUES. May 5, 2008 Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wali St Ste 200 Bend OR 97707 Dear Board of County Commissioners, RE: Sunriver UUC Town Center District 2000" I would like to thank the Board of County Commissioners for being responsive to, and understanding of the issues important to our community. We appreciate your willingness to accommodate our owners by holding your meeting here in Sunriver. It was apparent from the overflow crowd in the Great Hall that there was overwhelming support for the text amendments. Many also expressed frustration in the process, especially when further delays appeared to be imminent. Again, your desire to find a solution and move the process along as quickly as possible is greatly appreciated. We are quickly approaching the two year mark since SilverStar shared with SROA their desire to purchase the Sunriver Mall and redevelop it. We are more than a year into the zone creation process with the county and are not even through the first step. When we first sat down with the county to decide how best to proceed, it was thought that all processes would be complete and construction could commence as early as the fall of 2007. It now appears that this first step (text amendment) won't even be complete until mid -summer 2008. That leaves the Zoning Map amendment process, the Conceptual Site plan process and the normal Site Plan Review and building permit processes to run their lengthycourses before construction can. actually commence. If each one of these steps take as long as the first, it's conceivable that building permits won't be issued for two or three more years. 57455 ABBOT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 3278 • SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707 • (541)593-2411 • TOLL FREE (888) 284-6639 • FAX (541) 593-5669 www.sunriverowners.org SilverStar's first meeting with the SROA Board of Directors to discuss their intentions came on the heels of SROA's adoption of a Strategic Plan in the spring of 2006. A consultant hired to assist Sunriver in the process of assessing its current state in a competitive and expanding market, identified the mall's lack of character and current condition as detracting from the overall quality of the community. This became one of the focal points of the plan and led to a commitment by the board to assist in the renovation and redevelopment of the mall. The plan also called for the support of zoning and rule changes to accomplish community objectives. The adoption of the plan and the board's commitment all occurred prior to any knowledge of SilverStar's intentions to purchase the mall. SilverStar never forced their plan on the board or the community. In fact, they made their intentions clear to SROA from the onset. They were willing to purchase the property and assume certain risks, (including SROA members' approval of a land sale and the county's approval of the needed zone changes) if SROA would commit to support the needed zone changes and a land sale. SilverStar needed this commitment by the board before they would close on the purchase of the mall. The board gave SilverStar that commitment in the form of an agreement in December 2006. From the very beginning, SilverStar, SROA and the county met regularly and worked together with our land use attorneys to draft the new Town Center district language. The county made it clear that they would support whatever was agreeable to our community and it was more or less up to us to decide on what this new mixed use district would look like. Our goal was to make sure the language was in keeping with the December 2006 Agreement and that the specific parameters developed for the district would give SilverStar the latitude needed to ensure that their development would indeed be successful. The county recommended the process that we followed (creation of a new and distinct district) and worked closely with SilverStar and SROA to ensure that all of our objectives would be met. Unfortunately, due to the land sale failing to meet the needed 60% approval by the owners it caused a reduction in acreage for the district, which necessitated some changes to the text. SROA is working closely with SilverStar and the county on the revisions and believe that as soon as the revised text is made available by SilverStar, SROA will act on the changes. From what we can tell, the changes do not seem insurmountable. As soon as SROA has seen the revised text and has acted on the revisions, we will forward the board's decision to the commissioners. At the last BOCC meeting, the SROA Board of Director's testified and registered their support for the text amendment. They have vowed to do whatever is required of them so as to not cause further delays in the process. The board trusts that the commissioners will also do whatever they can to expedite what has already become a very lengthy and costly process for all parties involved. Again, thank you for your support and understanding of the important issues facing our community. Respectfully submitted, Bill Peck, CMCA General Manager Sunriver Owners Association cc: SROA Board of Directors BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION Terri Hansen Payne From: Pat Sunset [mhw46@chamberscable.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:39 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: The Village at Sunriver Project After attending the April 30 public meeting held at the Great Hall in Sunriver and viewing the conceptual master plan on page 24 of the May edition of the Sunriver Scene, my wife and I are even more opposed to the rezoning to mixed commercial/residential. Even now there is insufficient parking during many times of the year. The master plan doesn't show sufficient parking, especially near the proposed grocery store. Especially in the winter, customers are not going to be willing to push carts through the snow. The conceptual drawing on page 25 shows many stairways leading to the buildings, but no handicapped access -ramps, etc. Without sufficient parking, businesses will suffer and with increasing rents owners will face difficulty keeping their current customers. I don't buy that increased on-site residential will generate sufficient activity to ensure success of commercial business -particularly in the "shoulder" seasons. There is already crowding at the single bike tunnel leading from the mall under Abbott Drive leading to the Marina, etc. A second tunnel would have to be added if residential units are added to the mall. A concentration of additional housing in the mall will certainly have an adverse effect on our current lifestyle. There are many of us living in the south part of Sunriver who prefer "small" and do not aspire to "trophy homes" and other trappings of wealth as apparently some do. We are certainly not a "ghetto" for not adding millions of upgrades as one speaker implied. Many comments at the meeting dealt with how "old" and run down the buildings are. Are the building codes in Deschutes County so inadequate that 40 years is the end of a building's useful lifespan? Commissioner Luke refers to the fact that he was a contractor for some of these buildings Does he agree that these buildings have become unusable? Were inferior materials used in the construction or were structural plans inadequate? Past owners of the mall may have been negligent in maintaining the property. Is Silver Star any more capable? After all, they were the new owners when one of the buildings had a broken pipe and significant damage was done. We have had many colder winters without such damage. Are they capable of constructing and maintaining structures for our climatic conditions or does this indicate neglect on their part? I would recommend that the number of vacant storefronts should be remedied by simply removing several of the existing buildings and creating more parking and pleasing open space in their places. Rather than using wrecking ball techniques, find a contractor who will use salvage techniques to re -use the materials removed from the buildings. I had two uncles who bid and won a contract to salvage a commercial building for free, built 2 new houses with the materials, and made enough on selling additional materials for retirement. It is simply not in Sunriver's best interests to rezone the mall area to mixed commercial - residential. Sincerely, Paul Sunset 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Cc503@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:51 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Village Good evening: May 12, 2008 As a Sunriver owner for the past 15 years I support the rezoning of the Sunriver Mall Area. The Silver Star plan seems to be a solution for a truly on going problem. Merchants can't make a living doing business in the Sunriver Mall. A very few have a unique niche and can make it work. The rest can't survive. Silver Star has a plan to make it survive again. It's been tried as a strictly retail/office location. It doesn't work. Just walk through it. More empty buildings every year. What good is that doing anyone? A few will resist change at any cost. Usually reasons they don't really lead with. Rental competition might be number one. Generally it's a money issue dressed up to look like concern for the flavor of the environment, loss of trees, compatibility etc. No one is going to touch that property if it doesn't make financial sense. It doesn't make sense without mixed use. They have tried for 30 years. Nice plan, it just didn't work. We have two houses on Backwoods Lane. Directly across from the Village. We're impacted, we support the redevelopment and rezoning. Melvin and Becky Carlson Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. 5/20/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bob Fike [bobfike@aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:47 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Support for Silver Star To: board@co.deschutes.or.us May 12, 2008 cc: terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, I wish to express my strong support for the Silver Star efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Mall. I/we own a home in Sunriver. (Personalize to indicate whether permanent resident or absentee owner, etc.) I/we have watched Sunriver change and grow and have been happy with the way the SROA has managed our Association and maintained the Association's facilities, including rebuilding tennis courts and upgrading the swimming pools and bicycle paths. Sunriver Resort is investing in improving the golf courses, the main lodge, the stables and the marina, and has converted the old racquet club into a first class spa. We have a beautiful new circle (roundabout) at our main entrance on South Century Drive. Several property managers in Sunriver have banded together to build Maverick's — a new fitness and aquatics center. The one area that has not seen any improvements has been the Sunriver Village Mall. To my/our disappointment, the Mall has markedly deteriorated. It is in a state of disrepair, has a high vacancy rate and is no longer fulfilling its original intent - to be an inviting place to shop and gather for activities attractive to both residents and visitors. Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse and will adversely affect real estate values and the overall attractiveness of Sunriver as a desirable place to visit and own property. Finally, someone has come forward with a plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the Mall areas of many of the more modern resort Malls, which are vibrant with public plazas, retail and restaurant facilities. A reasonable number of new residential units combined with those already in Sunriver will provide the density of population to economically support the contemplated improvements and make it a first class Mall. Although there are some in Sunriver who are against the Silver Star application, some for personal reasons, Uwe believe the approval of the zoning change is in the best interests of Sunriver as a whole. Therefore, I/we strongly urge that you approve the zoning change requested by Silver Star. Robert Fike 5 Whistler Sun River, OR 5/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: jcschreck@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:39 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver town plan Dear Deschutes Planning Staff and Commission. We are long time property owners in Sunriver and voice our support of the revised Sunriver Town Plan currently under review. This plan will lead the way to a modern, vibrant, positive Sunriver village. Unfortunately, the village area is now very blighted and has a large vacancy rate. Thank you for your committment to good land use planning. Sincerely, Carl and Jacque Schreck (owners of 8 Virginia Rail Lane, Sunriver) 5/13/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Larry Weber [Iweber@georgefox.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:42 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: Silverstar Proposal and disenfranchised S/R owners Importance: High Terri, I received notification that the below e-mail inquiry had been 'delayed' in its delivery to you...so I am forwarding it you again...Please acknowledge receipt of my inquiry. Larry D. Weber, owner #9 Elk Lane, Sunriver Assistant Professor of Education School of Education George Fox University Home Office: 503.658.5658 Cell Phone: 503.887.3298 FAX: 503.658.6168 From: Larry Weber Sent: Mon 5/12/2008 8:02 AM To: terrip@deschutes.or.us Cc: Larry Weber Subject: Silverstar Proposal and disenfranchised S/R owners Terri, This past Friday, May 9, 2008 a fellow S/R owner e-mailed me about an SROA Board meeting to be held on Saturday, May 10, 2008...last Saturday! She indicated that it appeared that Silverstar's 'newest' consultant Dave Leland was on the agenda to present a 'new formula' for calculating density for Silverstar's proposal for a Town Center District and related zoning changes. Something called a Floor Plan Ratio (FAR). I can find nothing in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan nor zoning that addresses anything about a FAR! And, a call placed to you Friday indicated that you would not be back in the office until today, Monday, may 12, 2008. As a non-resident owner I was in Sunriver last week through Thursday doing 'annual Spring maintenance' to recover from the winter. I heard nothing about the consultant and a new attempt at a change in density calculation...nor have I heard anything from the County. I have a few questions this morning that I would appreciate your reply to Q-1) What is this thing called a Floor Plan Ratio (FAR) and where can I locate information on it in the County Comprehensive Plan or anything other knowledgeable source? 2) This question starts with a statement...I have been attending Planning Commission and now County Commission meetings on this 'moving target' of a proposal that as Staff states in ALL notices and reports ONLY AFFECTS SUNRIVER! It appears to me that this Town Center District proposal is nothing more than a glorified effort to circumvent the Comprehensive Plan for Sunriver under the guise of reinvigorating the Commercial Core. I say this because little or no attention in any of the meetings that I have attended has focused testimony or comments regarding the aspects of creating a commercial core...other than requirements for Square footage. It has all been about the housing element....density, set backs, and solar issues related to buildings where housing units are intended. 5/14/2008 Page 2 of 2 In the only vote that was afforded to ALL Sunriver owners of the proposal...the property sale, the $750,000 round- about that can be resolved with Stop signs (I am told); and a change in the Comprehensive Plan for Sunriver....over 1400 owners voted NO! It is a known fact before both Commissions...and stated for the record on April 30, 2008 by the proponents of the proposal... "That the number of resident owners, which at one time was 20%, is now at 12% and declining." Using the proponents figures...which I assume are backed by our Board...that leaves 88% percent of the Sunriver owners...tax payers to Deschutes County, as Non Resident owners. My point, I suspect that this must be a 'first' for the County...conducting hearings on a change in the County Comprehensive Plan with zone changes that affect a 'targeted' population (Sunriver only)...a population of Deschutes County Tax payers that are 88% non-residents! Notices of hearings and the proposal do not provide the non-resident owner with the 'details' of the proposal...leaving only the Sunriver Scene. The process of public meetings held with mid -week public meeting dates is disenfranchising these owners...of which I am one! I mention the only vote that has allowed ALL Sunriver owners to weigh in on this proposal...the Owner Vote of February 15, 2008...where over 1400 owners said "NO!" My question: Q-2 Since this is a targeted proposal 'only affecting Sunriver owners' where 88% of owners, such as myself, are non-resident owners... What is the County Planning Staff and Commissioners doing to solicit the public opinions of the 88% of the Sunriver owners who are being disenfranchised by the current on going, ever-changing hearings process on the Silverstar proposal?" Q-2 Can we, the 88% of Sunriver owners who are non-residents yet taxpayers in Deschutes County, expect at some point that we will be mailed 'a final' proposal with heights, density, setbacks, solar provisions, open space requirements before any County action is taken on the Proposal? Q-3 Will the County consider a mailer with an 'up/down'survey by All Sunriver owners on these aspects of changes that the creation of a Town Center District/Urban Renewal or whatever it is being called now? I share my concerns and questions as an involved non-resident taxpaying Deschutes County owner of property in Sunriver. I am struggling to balance my family and work responsibilities here in the Willamette Valley and keep up with the ever-changing Silverstar proposal that your Staff Report of February 28, 2008 indicates continues to cause much owner concern over density, heights, solar issues, setbacks, infrastructure issues, and the impact on the quality of the environment and life of Sunriver owners. Please forward my inquiry to the Board of County Commissioners to be included in the public record. And, thank you for your reply to my questions regarding the FAR's and how 'disenfranchised' non-resident Sunriver owners will be involved in the Silverstar proposal process before the County. Larry D. Weber (owner of # 9 Elk Lane Sunriver, Oregon) Assistant Professor of Education School of Education George Fox University Home Office: 503.658.5658 FAX: 503.658.6168 5/14/2008 Terri Payne, Senior Planner Community Development Dept. Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 Dear Ms. Payne, May 14,2008 I want to state my strong support for SilverStar's efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Village Mall. We are visitors who come and stay at Sunriver about five times a year and have heard about SilverStar's efforts to rehabilitate the Sunriver Mall. Our parents and two sisters each own a home in Sunriver. We have family reunions each year on July 4th and visit other times as well. We have visited other resorts communities of Whistler, Squaw Valley and Northstar. There are all very good resorts and have much variety to offer. The reason that we come to Sunriver is to enjoy all the amenities that it has. It is truly a place for all to enjoy. The facilities owned by the resort and the owner's association are well managed and are continually being improved. The one area that has not kept pace with the rest of Sunriver has been the Mall. We have three other families of cousins who have visited from New York last year. They commented on the detonation of the Mall even as first time visitors. We have seen how the Mall has deteriorated over the years. It is in a state of disrepair, has a high vacancy rate and is outdated. It is no longer an inviting place to be and materially detracts from the overall Sunriver experience. Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse, will adversely affect our desire to continue to visit Sunriver and will force us to consider staying at other more modern resorts, perhaps outside Deschutes County. Silverstar is a responsible developer and their plans will greatly help Sunriver to rebuild. I believe this in turn will be an attraction for Deschutes County. We are glad to see that Silverstar has come forward with a plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the malls of the more modern resorts. A vibrant, mixed-use mall with public plazas, retail and restaurant facilities and a reasonable number of new residential units will make a huge difference in our desire to visit Sunriver in the future. We urge that you approve the zoning change requested by Silverstar. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Jim & Eliza Kelly 4640 NE 178th Street Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Home: 206-363-3237 Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, May 14,2008 I want to state my strong support for SilverStar's efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Village Mall. We are visitors who come and stay at Sunriver about five times a year and have heard about SilverStar's efforts to rehabilitate the Sunriver Mall. Our parents and two sisters each own a home in Sunriver. We have family reunions each year on July 4th and visit other times as well. We have visited other resorts communities of Whistler, Squaw Valley and Northstar. There are all very good resorts and have much variety to offer. The reason that we come to Sunriver is to enjoy all the amenities that it has. It is truly a place for all to enjoy. The facilities owned by the resort and the owner's association are well managed and are continually being improved. The one area that has not kept pace with the rest of Sunriver has been the Mall. We have three other families of cousins who have visited from New York last year. They commented on the detonation of the Mall even as first time visitors. We have seen how the Mall has deteriorated over the years. It is in a state of disrepair, has a high vacancy rate and is outdated. It is no longer an inviting place to be and materially detracts from the overall Sunriver experience. Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse, will adversely affect our desire to continue to visit Sunriver and will force us to consider staying at other more modern resorts, perhaps outside Deschutes County. Silverstar is a responsible developer and their plans will greatly help Sunriver to rebuild. I believe this in turn will be an attraction for Deschutes County. We are glad to see that Silverstar has come forward with a plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the malls of the more modern resorts. A vibrant, mixed-use mall with public plazas, retail and restaurant facilities and a reasonable number of new residential units will make a huge difference in our desire to visit Sunriver in the future. We urge that you approve the zoning change requested by Silverstar. Jim & Eliza Kelly 4640 NE 178th Street Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Home: 206-363-3237 Terri Hansen Payne From: Kelly_Catherine@emc.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:45 AM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall development To: board@co.deschutes.or.us cc: terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, I wish to express my strong support for the SilverStar efforts to obain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Mall. I own a home in Sunriver, and planned to establish permanent residency there upon retirement, but I will not do so if the Sunriver Mall remains in the deteriorated state that it is in. Sunriver is a beautiful destination that needs to be maintained with an attractive community center where residents can shop, walk around, enjoy a coffee and other amenities and services. We do not have that today, and we are losing both visitors and residents because of it. We have an opportunity to develop a first class mall in Sunriver. Please support the communities effort to succeed at this project, and approve the zoning changes requested by SilverStar. Sincerely, Catherine Kelly Westside, Scilly Kinsale, Co. Cork Ireland 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tammy Melton Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:24 PM To: 'Pat KeIIy' Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Mall Redevelopment Hi James and Catherine - Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; I do read each one. In addition, your comments have been added to the public record. In Partnership, Tavu,vt,ttj (gavtetj) Mel.too, Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: Pat Kelly[mailto:patsy_kelly@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:20 AM To: dennis_luke@co.deshutes.or.us; Tammy Melton; Mike Daly Subject: Mall Redevelopment We wholly support the improvements that SilverStar is trying to accomplish in the Sunriver Mall. We have owned a house on Crag Lane for the past 5 years and are dismayed by the erosion and closing of the buildings and stores. There is no pride in showing the hub of SR to our visiting relatives from NY. It's a place we ourselves want to avoid. Our 2 daughters also own homes in SR and support the renovations. My husband and I drove to SR and attended both meetings-- Mavericks & Great Hall-- and were impressed at the turnout. Thank you all for your efforts. Sincerely, James & Catherine Kelly 5/20/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Pat Kelly [patsy_kelly@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:53 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: The village at Sunriver To Terry Hansen -Payne, We wholly support the improvements that SilverStar is trying to accomplish in the mall. For 5 years we have owned a house on Crag Lane and are dismayed by the erosion and closing of buildings and stores. There is no pride in showing our visiting relatives the center of SR--- the mall --- because of its deterioration. It's a place we ourselves want to avoid. Our 2 daughters also own homes (Circle 4) and support the renovations. We presently live in SJ, CA and attended both meetings _ Mavericks & Great Hall ---to show our support for Village Redevelopment and were impressed at the turnout. Thank you for your efforts, James and Catherine Kelly 5/20/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Mike McCarthy [mikejmc66@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:22 AM To: Board; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Village Mall Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, I wish to express my strong support for SilverStar's efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Village Mall. My family and I are regular visitors who come and stay at Sunriver and have heard about SilverStar's efforts to rehabilitate the Sunriver Mall. I have been a regular visitor to Sunriver for 6 years, travelling up to 3 times per year from southern California. The reason that we come to Sunriver is to enjoy all the amenities that it has. It is truly a place for all to enjoy. The facilities owned by the resort and the owner's association are well managed and are continually being improved. The mall, however, has not kept pace with the rest of Sunriver and is an eyesore and an embarassment. To my disappointment, the Sunriver Mall has markedly deteriorated. It is in a state of disrepair, has a high vacancy rate and is outdated. It is not an inviting place to be and materially detracts from the overall Sunriver experience. Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse, will adversely affect our desire to continue to visit Sunriver. We are glad to see that someone has come forward with a plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the malls of the more modern resorts. A vibrant, mixed-use mall with public plazas, retail and restaurant facilities and a reasonable number of new residential units will make a huge difference in our desire to visit Sunriver in the future. For these reasons, I strongly urge that you approve the zoning change requested by SilverStar. Sincerely, Mike McCarthy 61 Ashford Irvine, CA 92618 5/20/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Shar Carraway [spcarraway@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:41 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall To: board@co.deschutes.or.us cc: terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Commissioners Daly, Luke & Melton, I wish to express my strong support for the SilverStar efforts to obtain approval of a new Town Center District zoning for mixed-use development in the Sunriver Mall. We purchased a home last year in Sunriver after hearing that the mall was going to be redeveloped by Silver Star. We vacationed in Sunriver previously, and absolutely love the area. We have watched Sunriver change and grow and have been happy with the way the SROA has managed our Association and maintained the Association's facilities, including rebuilding tennis courts and upgrading the swimming pools and bicycle paths. Sunriver Resort is investing in improving the golf courses, the main lodge, the stables and the marina, and has converted the old racquet club into a first class spa. We have a beautiful new circle (roundabout) at our main entrance on South Century Drive. Several property managers in Sunriver have banded together to build Maverick's — a new fitness and aquatics center. The one area that has not seen any improvements has been the Sunriver Village Mall. To our disappointment, the Mall has markedly deteriorated. It is in a state of disrepair, has a high vacancy rate and is no longer fulfilling its original intent - to be an inviting place to shop and gather for activities attractive to both residents and visitors. Further deterioration and continued flight of merchants will make it worse and will adversely affect real estate values and the overall attractiveness of Sunriver as a desirable place to visit and own property. Finally, someone has come forward with a plan to turn the Mall around and make it comparable to the Mall areas of many of the more modern resort Malls, which are vibrant with public plazas, retail and restaurant facilities. A reasonable number of new residential units combined with those already in Sunriver will provide the density of population to economically support the contemplated improvements and make it a first class Mall. Although there are some in Sunriver who are against the SilverStar application, some for personal reasons, We believe the approval of the zoning change is in the best interests of Sunriver as a whole. Therefore, we strongly urge that you approve the zoning change requested by SilverStar. Shar and Chris Carraway Portland, OR/Sunriver OR 5/20/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: TUMBLE INN [TUMBLEINN@BENDBROADBAND.COM] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:54 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: silver star Please try and preserve some of the beauty that has made Sunriver and central Oregon beautiful!! Bend has already ruined its quaint downtown with ugly buildings and fancy city style shops. Bend was once known as a friendly little town with local shops and it has morphed into little California. I have lived here for 18 years and the amount of Californication has been astounding. Please remember why you loved this area and why people have moved here in the past.....NATURAL BEAUTY NOT HIGH RISES AND CONDOS!!!! Thank you Greg Farfaglia 56421 Celestial dr 5/20/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Pat Kelly [patsy_kelly@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:13 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: The village at Sunriver May I also add to my comments, the words from the movie, "Field of Dreams"? IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME Thanks for your response. Terri Hansen Payne <Terri Payne@co.deschutes.or.us> wrote: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the public record. Terri Payne Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-1404 Fax (541) 385-1764 terrip@co.deschutes.or.us From: Pat Kelly [mailto:patsy_kelly@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:53 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: The village at Sunriver To Terry Hansen -Payne, We wholly support the improvements that SilverStar is trying to accomplish in the mall. For 5 years we have owned a house on Crag Lane and are dismayed by the erosion and closing of buildings and stores. There is no pride in showing our visiting relatives the center of SR--- the mall --- because of its deterioration. It's a place we ourselves want to avoid. Our 2 daughters also own homes (Circle 4) and support the renovations. We presently live in SJ, CA and attended both meetings Mavericks & Great Hall ---to show our support for Village Redevelopment and were impressed at the turnout. Thank you for your efforts, James and Catherine Kelly 5/21/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tom Anderson Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 12:37 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: Sunriver Town Center Zoning From: Mike Daly Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:33 PM To: 'BobB' Cc: Board; Tom Anderson Subject: RE: Sunriver Town Center Zoning Robert, Thank you for your email. I have read it and forwarded it to Staff for inclusion into the record. There has been no discussion about returning this to the planning commission. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: BobB [mailto:rlbolin@sunrivertelecom.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:22 PM To: Mike Daly Subject: Sunriver Town Center Zoning Dear Commissioner Daly, I attended an SROA Board meeting today where Silver Star outlined thier latest proposed text revisions. As you know, they propose to replace the 22 residential unit -per -acre limit with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 which would permit, for example, the construction of 565 units on the 17 acres Silver Star owns. Remembering that the Planning Commission recommended a limit of 500 units on 26.5 acres Silver star thought they would own, this is such a significant change that I would hope Commissioners would refer the request back to the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Robert Bolin 23 Oregon Loop Sunriver, Oregon 97707 598-8958 5/27/2008 HARVEY C. BARRAGAR 7730 SW Fairmoor St. Portland, Or 97225 May 23, 2008 Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Subject: PA -07-6 and TA -07-06 Proposed Changes to the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Dear Commissioners, It has been a year since the original application in this matter was filed. After many hearings and amendments to the application, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the density of residential reduced and the amount of commercial development increased. In response, the applicant filed an amendment to substantially reduce the required amount of commercial and is about to file yet another amendment substantially increasing the allowed residential development. The latitude that has been given to the applicant to have hearings before its application is finalized has placed an undue burden on property owners who are opposed to the proposal and who have property that is likely to be adversely affected if the proposed development goes forward. Many of these property owners have had to travel substantial distances to attend virtually meaningless hearings regarding an application that continues to be a moving target. This matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission with instructions that no further hearings are to be held until the application is finalized and that no further amendments are to be allowed after the next hearing. Furthermore, no further hearings should be held until interested parties have had an opportunity to carefully review and analyze the final content of the application. Very truly yours, Harvey C. Barragar Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tammy Melton Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:40 AM To: 'SOS' Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Sunriver Rental Income Hi Herbert - Thank you for your email; I very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this important decision. Please know that although I have received numerous emails relating to this issue; 1 do read each one. In addition, your comments have been forwarded for inclusion in the public record. In Partnership, TGivu,wt.ltj (gawetj) Meltow Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: SOS [mailto:sos@sunrivertelecom.com] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:05 PM To: Board Cc: B Adelman Subject: Sunriver Rental Income TO: COMMISSIONERS As I understand the presentation by Mr. Leland on April 9, 2008, he reported a decrease in net rental income at Sunriver. While I don't have the figures for 2007, the figures for 2006 and 2005 are available in the audited SROA financial statements prepared by Harrigan Price, the SROA auditors. They contradict Mr. Leland. Footnote 15 of the 2006 audited report states that pursuant to a contract with the management companies, the SROA received 2.7% of rents, or $815,200 (rounded) in 2006 and 2.9%, or $803,900 (rounded) in 2005. Assuming these figures are correct, as I do, the management companies received rental income of about $30,200,000 in 2006, and about $27,700,000 in 2005. This is a year-on-year increase of about 10%. Mr. Leland cited no source for his negative report, but at least for the most recent period for which I have figures, rental income seems to have increased nicely. We have asked the SROA on several occasions for the figures for 2007, but have received no reply, so we can't tell what happened to rental income in 2007.[1][1] I am advised by real estate agents that despite the increase in gross rental income, income per rental home has declined because of an increase in the number of available rental units. The increase per rental home will surely further decline if, say, 300 new rental units become available as the result of the mall proposal. This is economics 101 and can't plausibly be answered by an assertion that the mall will increase rental demand by attracting new visitors. At best, many years would elapse before this could conceivably occur. If the mall proceeds as planned, the 40% or so of homeowners who presently rent their units can expect a significant decline in their rental income and for many, the need for sizable capital investment to modernize their units and compete against the new rental units in the mall. Turning briefly to sales prices of units, I have owned homes in Sunriver for 20 years. They appreciated quite nicely over this period and every study I have seen confirms that in good years and bad (e.g., the present Bend/national market) Sunriver has out performed the market as a whole. For much of this period the mall had a high vacancy rate, etc. Bottom line: Whatever arguments there may be for a nicer mall, greater rental income for home owners and 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 protecting house prices, are not among them. Herbert Adelman [1][1] An article in the May 23, 2008 Bend Bulletin states that median home sales prices in the first quarter of 2008 fell about 12% in Bend, 14% in Redmond, 15% in Sisters, and 27% in LaPine, as compared to the first quarter of 2007. However for this same period, prices in Sunriver rose 16%. 5/27/2008