HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-25 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960
(541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M Daly and Tammy
(Baney) Melton. Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator;
Dan Sherwin and George Kolb, Road Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal
Counsel; Will Groves, Community Development Department; Planning
Commissioners Robert Otteni, Brenda Pace, Susan Quatre; and approximately
sixty citizens, including various representatives of the media.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No.
2008 -348, a Grant Agreement with the Oregon Department of Agriculture
regarding Integrated Vegetation Management Programs.
Dan Sherwin gave a brief overview of the item, which is a continuation of a
grant that has been in place for approximately five years.
He also mentioned some of the programs now in place, such as the Weed Pull.
Brenda Pace added that Mr. Sherwin is working hard with the legislature to
start a program in regard to controlling noxious weeds, similar to the "adopt a
road" program for debris removal.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 1 of 22 Pages
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2008-
303, A Grant Application to the Department of Transportation for Bike
Lane and Sidewalk Improvements in Terrebonne.
George Kolb explained what improvements would be done in Terrebonne to
improve access and enhance safety in the area. There is a 5% match required,
which can be worked into the budget during the next few years.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No.
2008 -322, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Department of Human Services regarding Mental Health, Developmental
Disability and Addiction Services.
Lori Hill gave an overview of the document, which increases the amount
allocated for these programs. This is budget neutral for the County and is
passed through to the provider.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No.
2008 -352, An Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Oregon Department of Human Services regarding Administration of
Federal Behavioral Rehabilitation Services for Juveniles.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 2 of 22 Pages
Ken Hales explained the item, which is similar to another that is an addition to
the agenda. One covers the current time period and the other begins at a later
date.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2008-
314, a Contract for Subgrant with MountainStar Family Relief Nursery to
Provide Child Abuse Intervention Services.
Diane Treadway said that funding goes through the County for these services.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
7. Before the Board was a Work Session on an Appeal of the Hearings
Officer's Decision Denying a Non -farm Dwelling on a Parcel in the
Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Applicant: Nash).
Will Groves said additional materials were submitted into the written record,
which the Board has received. Also, an oversized map has been produced
showing the property and adjacent properties in the Millican area. He referred
to the map at this time. The Nash property is 160 acres, divided by a road. The
properties noted in dark green are owned by Nash; the light green is private; the
blue is County and the orange is State or Federal.
Laurie Craghead stated there is a recent case out of LUBA regarding the
Tumalo Irrigation District; LUBA determined what is generally suitable may
not based entirely on the size of the parcel. State Rule says you look at the
adjacent properties only if size is the main issue.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 3 of 22 Pages
Mr. Groves said that the Board asked staff to try to find a way to let this
dwelling be established without setting precedence. Staff has not found a way
to do this.
Commissioner Melton stated that any decision on this issue might be premature,
based on the fact that the Board is now reviewing comprehensive plan
amendments. Ms. Craghead confirmed that she is looking at adjacent lands, as
did the Hearings Officer.
Commissioner Luke stated that Code means what the Board interprets it to
mean. Commissioner Daly asked if Code conflicts with State law. Ms.
Craghead said the Hearings Officer's interpretation was stricter than State law.
Commissioner Daly said that he would like to be able to approve this dwelling;
he feels that every person should have the right to live on property if they are
making a living on it, especially in this type of area where there are hundreds of
acres; a few more dwellings would not have much of an impact.
Ms. Craghead said that is a Code interpretation on this one issue, the size of the
acreage. Commissioner Luke stated that the decision made by the legislature
was not necessarily based on what makes sense, but perhaps on the number of
votes that could be obtained.
He feels that land is best managed by people who live on it, especially if they
have livestock. The problem is that there is already a house on the property.
Their application raises a bigger question, one that should be analyzed in the
comprehensive plan update. The decision was based on the types of soil, which
are not good, and there is no water. It is unrealistic to think that someone could
make a living on that small acreage. He cannot support the application but
wants this situation analyzed further. Ms. Craghead said that this means that
adjacent lands are to be considered in this decision.
Commissioner Melton is having a problem with two homesites being on the
same parcel of land.
Commissioner Daly asked if the other residence actually is on the same parcel;
Mr. Groves stated that it is not. Commissioner Daly does not agree with the
Hearings Officer's decision.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 4 of 22 Pages
MELTON: Move to uphold the Hearings Officer's interpretation and decision.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: No. (Split vote.)
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (continued) on Amendments to
Create a Town Center District in the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community (Files PA -0706 and TA- 07 -6).
Terri Payne said the language has been crafted in such a way that staff is
comfortable with it. It is now a policy decision for the Board.
Chair Luke opened the public hearing. He asked that the applicants make their
presentation no longer than fifteen minutes.
Mark Smuland gave an overview of the item and recapped the changes made
since the Planning Commission's approval and the previous Board meeting. He
said that Dave Leland of Leland Consulting Group will provide information on
the revised plan.
Mr. Smuland then gave a Powerpoint presentation, which included the number
of meetings and hearings held, solutions regarding density and ratios,
landscaping and the types of residences.
Mr. Leland gave his background and an overview of the projects in which he
has participated in developing. He indicated what is needed to financially
support the project and provide needed services and dwellings. There are a
number of aspects that need to be in placed for a viable town center. The
Sunriver project will set precedence for similar projects in the region.
The rules and plans for each are distinct and based on the local market.
Research shows that about 60% of mixed use projects fail or underperform;
much of this relates to controls and Code that can present barriers. It has to be
flexible to accommodate housing diversity and new uses as they emerge.
Adjustments have to be allowed over time to take into account changing needs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 5 of 22 Pages
Floor area ratios are used more now than density. This is not a housing project,
and floor area ratios are a more accurate way to measure how property should
be used. He then went into more detail about dwelling acres per acre and how
this affects the overall plan. Fixed density works well if only dwellings are
considered. In a mixed use environment, the floor area ratio must be used.
There is a lot of this detail that is not currently addressed in zoning regulations.
Housing needs to address the needs of seniors and others; community services
need to be attracted to the area, and the sale of residential helps to subsidize the
retail uses. Most similar developments have a 1.09 to 1.24 floor area ratio. The
Sunriver plan would be at 1.0.
Also, trips are saved if services and goods are available locally. This can
significantly reduce vehicle trips. Quality will be a priority. The development
would serve the entirety of Sunriver as well as the local area. He would like to
see the SROA (Sunriver Owners Association) develop a set of principals to
direct the developer on the use of the property, such as the hours of operation,
the type of businesses and so on.
The market is in charge and impacts the success of the project, which should
include retail, office uses and residential. He hopes that the Code is flexible
enough to allow the project to be successful. The existing controls of the
SROA are not strong enough in his opinion.
Commissioner Luke asked how Fairview, Oregon can cap the population there.
Mr. Leland said that is not possible to stop growth.
Mark Smuland said that they have devised, with County staff, a way to regulate
the number of residential units. The City of Hillsboro used the traffic impact
analysis as a way to control residential density. A maximum number of p.m.
hour trips would be set and mitigation made to meet this regulation. Each
development application would use this as a trip bank, for both residential and
commercial, as this gives the flexibility to respond to the changing market. The
22 units per acre is arbitrary.
Brenda Pace asked about the ground floor use plan, which still doesn't show the
square footage for the retail uses.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 6 of 22 Pages
Commissioner Luke said they are looking at a zone change, which does not
necessarily need this information. There will be more addressed with the
master plan. Ms. Pace said that she feels the commercial may not be adequate.
Ms. Payne said that there is a minimum set with the SROA which will be
phased over a period of time. The County would provide flexibility.
Ms. Craghead said there is a ratio requirement. Mr. Leland stated that you don't
want to over - retail and have the development fail. The controls will be much
stronger at the development agreement level and not at the County. There is a
huge range of details that cannot be addressed through Code. It is the SROA's
involvement that will establish the details.
Commissioner Luke said that the developer will want to have the SROA Board
to be supportive.
Mr. Smuland reiterated how the fluctuations of occupancy would be handled to
keep the development on track. Ms. Pace said that they hope the number of
full -time residents can be increased over time, creating more demand for
commercial.
Mr. Smuland said the idea of leaving in reserve some space for additional retail
would not work. The ground floor uses prescribes the placement of retail; it is
not plausible to use ground floor space for residential. It is not possible to write
Code to cover every scenario; there are market conditions that come into play as
the development comes together.
Tom Luerson testified that he agrees with almost everything that has been
presented. Contrary to rumor, the resort is not against this development. He
has worked closely with John Goodman and Silverstar over the years, in the
spirit of cooperation and collaboration. The village is not a mixed use
development now; it is commercial. The residential part could help to sustain
retail. They are not against the FAR aspect. Developers need to respond to
market needs.
However, there are still questions. The biggest is understanding the FAR. He
was out of town for a month and had to be brought up to speed quickly. The
investor group has been looking at this situation for many years. He has talked
with a lot of people to get input and clarification.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 7 of 22 Pages
He then read his statement. He said the resort and the mall can work in
harmony. He believes that the retail can attract more people than golfing, as
shopping occurs year round. He originally took a neutral position because he
does have reservations. He does not want it to remain the way it is. He wants it
to enhance Sunriver overall. The neutral position was the size, number of units,
pro forma and its success. He does not question Silverstar's wherewithal.
Resorts often have to bring in different investors and financial partners so that
they can perform as needed. The land use goes into perpetuity that would help
to reenergize the community.
In his opinion, the text amendment that is proposed does not address the
commercial, retail and residential issues adequately. Silverstar will not abuse
this but a future owner may see things differently. The text amendment allows
for something that may not be what the community wants. There needs to be
safeguards on the FAR, and the development agreement between SROA and
Silverstar would have to speak to more details, such as the blend of commercial
and retail.
SROA is concerned about the bad public relations that come because of this
issue. It is painful to say that the current development is not adequate, and this
affects marketing.
In regard to dwelling units, the 22 acres that were proposed were a concern and
whether they would be financially successful. If studio units were built, that
would allow too many units per acre. The range of options available under the
text amendment is too broad. They'd like to find a way for this mixed use
development to have safeguards. There can be caps. Breckenridge has a FAR
with dwelling units.
Commissioner Daly asked about the reservations on 22 per acre; Mr. Luersen
said he is concerned these could not be absorbed. It is a fifteen year process.
To sell 583 units may not be feasible for the investor since there are residential
areas right around the corner. Condos have a lower rate of owner occupied
units, but some locations are successful in selling them.
He then said that a FAR may be appropriate, but with specific guidelines and
constraints. Parking is an issue, and they want careful control of the balance of
uses. Unintended consequences need to be considered. He would like to see an
agreement on an FAR with linkage to a development agreement.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 8 of 22 Pages
Steve Runner, Vice President of Development at Sunriver, referred to a chart
showing the residential density scenario and parking requirements, as well as
how much commercial is now in place and is proposed.
Susan Quatre asked if parking would be limited to ensure the mix. Mr. Runner
replied that it could be stacked, but as more units are added, more parking needs
to be in place.
Lamoine Eiler, an architect and land planner for 28 years, was asked by the
resort to review the text amendment in relation to FAR as there is not enough in
Code. He hasn't seen any additional standards that might be applied. He said
that Mr. Leland painted a nice picture of communities, including Seaside,
Florida, using design standards. They did not use FAR; they used a Code
standard. He is worried about the developer maxing out the FAR. Other means
are more predictable. Regarding the other images shown, FAR is just part of
the means of those communities to direct development. Some have height
restrictions, architectural and placement requirements, and have density
requirements, but are using FAR.
Not addressed in the Code language is building massing. Should the footprint
of 120,000 square feet be repeated in each floor, or should they step the
building in? He feels this should be included in Code.
Commissioner Luke asked why government should direct what should be on
each floor. Government should stay out of some things. Mr. Eiler responded
that government regulations should be in place to achieve the vision that is
promised. People need to respond to the standard. The largest building on the
site may contain a hotel.
Commissioner Luke stated that they are discussing a zone change and text
amendment and not a project, but Mr. Eiler keeps jumping back to the project.
Mr. Eiler said that the text amendment contains the FAR aspect but with no
controls.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that there will be an agreement between the
owners and the developer, and a master plan that has to be approved by the
County, just like anything else.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 9 of 22 Pages
Tom Luersen said that he asked Mr. Eiler to point out the FAR uses, and that
other standards should be used to avoid incompatible uses. They want to find
linkage between the development agreement and Code. The text amendment
gives too much latitude. There is nothing to win by delaying this, but they want
to put safeguards in the amendment.
Commissioner Luke asked what conditions they are suggesting be included. He
has been in the building industry most of his life. He's not an expert, but they
are looking at people who are investing a lot of money and expect a decent
return.
Mr. Luersen said they are comfortable with 22 units per acre. They want a cap
on the FAR and are prepared to work with them on this. Silverstar says this
would not be successful to them. There should also be architectural control and
retail in the commercial district. Residential should bring vibrancy to retail.
There is no requirement for retail.
Commissioner Melton stated that this conversation could happen now or at site
plan approval. The Board does not want to be dictated by what has already
happened. The agreement is not yet in place. Worse case is that someone else
buys the land and the uses of the land will be the driver. She would like to have
this conversation now.
Susan Quatre said it is hard to apply a cap, and is also concerned about the
property changing hands. She still thinks that parking can be used as a control.
Mr. Luersen stated that FAR wasn't in the developer's mind until a few months
ago.
Brenda Pace stated that the Hearings Officer has to go by Code. Mr. Luersen
said that there will be other opportunities to weigh in, but this one sets the
momentum. He would like to have some consideration be given on best
practices from other places and see if they are applicable.
At this time Chair Luke directed a five- minute break, and changed the
scheduled 1:30 meeting time to 2:30.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 10 of 22 Pages
Greg Jacobs, with Colm Commercial, discussed property management and
leasing now and in the future. He said he is a resident and a former business
owner. A key piece is a clear history in the pattern of mall, which was heavy
retail oriented at first. The idea was sound then but the demand wasn't there. It
became overbuilt and never had enough occupancy. The mission is developing
a retail component. A specific number may be too constraining, so there should
be no cap. These discussions have been going on for over a year. They are
working on the tenant ratio, and need to make sure that non - competing criteria
is addressed.
Richard Alltree said he is seeing a lot of excuses why this is such a slow
process. It is time to change. Process is a good thing but delay is the dark side.
There is no big, long line of developers who want to do this. It is bleeding
Silverstar dry, and they cannot sustain a long wait. He does not know if there is
a hidden agenda but the process should not be harnessed or hijacked to slow
everything down. He wants them to move up the timetable and make it work.
There is no formula for success but there is one for failure, trying to please
everyone. Nothing is perfect and there are not unlimited resources. The Board
needs to see that this portion gets done, as continuances will kill it. This has a
lot of potential that should not be missed. He asked that the Board please
expedite this.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that if they don't follow the process, appeals
can result and it can take even longer. They have to follow requirements.
Lew Davies, a permanent resident, said he originally had a lot of questions
about the motives of Silverstar, and abhors this at the last hour, trying to slow
things down. At this point there is an element that will help address many
concerns, the development agreement in which SROA will be involved.
Parking is part of the mechanism. No one should try to create fear about the
development, s that is undeserved. The SROA and agreement will help clarify
and control the outcome. He asked that this be approved and allowed to move
forward. The County will be involved at several levels in the future.
Keith Sime of Sunriver, a permanent resident, feels he has a responsibility to
participate in the process. Every member should. Sunriver Resort is a member
of the community but has a lot more votes. They sat on their hands for two
years and now want to slow the process, and are presenting all smoke and
mirrors today.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 11 of 22 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked that Mr. Sime stick to the issue at hand and not the
motives of Sunriver Corporation. He asked if Mr. Sime supports it as is. Mr.
Sime replied that the Resort has held this up long enough. He asked for
approval without delay so it can move on. He supports the text amendment as
now stated.
Ron Day, a member of the Board of Directors, asked on behalf of the Board of
Directors that there be no delay. That represents the majority of the
community. He thinks issues can be resolved between parties without creating
unnecessary delays. One issue is the FAR, which was discussed as far back as
May. They have been working on the village for two years; the Resort said
they would monitor things but take no public position. If there is a way to
approve this with a condition regarding a development agreement, the Board of
Directors supports it and the developer has no objection. The Resort can
participate but not be a signatory. Furthermore, work on the development
agreement started in 2006, and he has a draft of that he can share.
Commissioner Luke stated that the suggestion is that the development
agreement be tied to the text amendment. Ms. Craghead said that she is not
sure this can happen; there may be prohibitions on involving a third party.
Mr. Day stated that it is more than a draft between SROA and Silverstar. It
needs to run with the land. The SROA - elected Board of Directors asks that
there be no delays.
Commissioner Melton said that today's hearing is to gather more information.
They would have talked about the FAR anyway. Today is not a rubber stamp.
Scott Pence of Re/Max encouraged the Board to vote today. There are a lot of
things he would like to weigh in on. The community has been there for forty
years, and found success with the design review process. It is sometimes
frustrating but has worked well. Delay is killing the community.
Commissioner Luke said that retail is not mentioned but commercial is. Mr.
Pence replied that the market will take care of itself. They won't put in things
that don't make sense. They won't do self - defeating things to lose money.
Right now things are as bad as they can get.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 12 of 22 Pages
Larry Weber of Damascus is a non - resident property owner who is familiar
with urban expansion issues. He does not support the language. He feels it is
too permissive, and "should" ought to be "will ". Owners expect the text
amendment to revitalize the commercial core. Most of the property owners are
not present. There are 1,450 properties, and the owners voted no on the land
sale. This continues to be a contentious issue and time is needed to work it out.
It is not about the applicant but the long -term use of the property. He supports
what the Resort representative said.
He said that people keep testifying about the conditions of the mall. Some
retailers are still doing well and there is no emergency. The buildings are fine
and safe. There is a proposed emergency clause that isn't needed.
Commissioner Daly pointed out that without it, an application would be held up
for 90 days.
Terri Payne explained when the final documents were placed on the website. It
is a complicated process.
Commissioner Luke said that there have been work sessions with staff,
individual meetings and about 470 e- mails. Commissioner Daly state he has
had similar contacts.
Doris Brannon, President of SROA Board, submitted written testimony. She
said that the SROA Board fully endorses the test amendment per a meeting last
week. SROA has greatly invested in this process and has been diligent in its
research.
As President, she reaffirmed that there has been no "no" vote. The Board voted
unanimously for the FAR concept. The development agreement is the part of
the process where a lot of conditions can be addressed.
Commissioner Melton said that there can be good intentions, but what if the
development agreement is not followed. Commissioner Luke said that this is
like CCR's and goes with the land. Ms. Brannon added that everyone has been
concerned about doing this the best way possible. All of the people who
expressed concerns are caring people who may have a question about one or
two things but personally most favor this.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 13 of 22 Pages
This has to go through a conceptual master plan and they won't accept it if it
isn't proper. Parking is important. There are only certain things permitted per
Code.
Commissioner Melton asked if there will be housing to support the workforce
population. Ms. Craghead said whether this is allowed may be in case law.
Another option is to put into Code where it should go unless there is case law
that says it can't be done.
James Lewis, a land use consultant, said he was brought in to SROA about six
weeks ago. He helped to write the original Code now in place for Sunriver.
Citizens want a thriving town center, and need flexibility and assurances. Over
a period of time market forces change, and the developer needs to be successful.
FAR and the development agreement, along with market forces and the design
process, will ensure that it will benefit the community and will not overtax
facilities and services. The checks and balances through the process have been
fantastic, and were highly scrutinized. The best development for the town
center are rules and regulations that allow it to survive. Change is inevitable.
Bev Davies, a resident and homeowner, said she is for the amendment. FAR is
brilliant and explains things fully. They may have to have a generic
development agreement to address some concerns, but she does not want this to
stall.
Doug Seator, resident, asked the Board to vote today. County planning, the
SROA and Silverstar have spent untold hours on this over the past two years.
There have been lots of opportunities to weigh in. The FAR concept was
presented on May 10 and he fully understood it within ten days. They are
anxious for a decision so they can get on with this.
Dave Lewis, Board Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, said that there are 240
business owners and many of those have an exit strategy in place right now.
Some are using the equity in their homes to survive. The Chamber is also
looking at an exit plan due to delays and bad timing It is hard to look ahead
two years. He urged the emergency adoption of the text amendment. It makes
a lot of sense to use guiding principles and not prescriptive zoning. They will
work with the developer through the agreement, which will stay with the land.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 14 of 22 Pages
Parking and traffic are part of the limiting factors. A lot of time has passed and
it is not right for someone to come in at the last minute and try to unduly
influence the Commissioners. This is causing tremendous onyx in the
community.
Commissioner Luke said that Sunriver kept him working in the 1980's and is a
huge asset to the area, as well as the largest room tax provider. They should
have no special privileges but should be able to testify. Mr. Lewis replied that
they have had a lot of opportunities to weigh in and their last minute statements
don't make sense.
Jane Boubel of Sunriver said she is a five -year resident and has owned Sunriver
property for eighteen years. She was a department head for twenty -five years
for a municipality, and had to learn quickly about planning, which is difficult
and complex. There is no custom fit in an off -the -rack world.
She admires the County's efforts to codify something that is just for Sunriver
but might be used elsewhere in the future. She said that staff has done all it can
to put the parameters into place. The important document will be the
development agreement, and she supports that in whatever way is appropriate.
She encouraged that the amendment be approved as soon as possible so
everyone can get on with their lives.
Jonathan Kanowski complimented the County for bearing with them through all
us. He sent an e-mail previously that still stands, addressing the text
amendment and what it should or should not do. His point is that the zoning
Code is not the place to micromanage the project. He could envision a similar
development in a place like Terrebonne or Tumalo someday, and the design
standards for Sunriver may not work there. The text amendment as drafted is a
good balance between generic zoning Code and specific needs.
He did disagree with one comment. He applauds Commissioners who talk
about what is appropriate to impose on private property. Because a government
agency adopts a set of aesthetic standards, it becomes community standards. It
is not possible to legislate everything to everyone's satisfaction, especially since
it might be for decades.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 15 of 22 Pages
Parking requirements are critical and can limit. The 150 square foot of
commercial for every unit does the same thing. If there are too many units,
there will be too much commercial. They need to avoid a vacancy rate, but it is
better to let the market and business people make those kinds of mistakes.
Protections already built into Code work the same as caps, and allow more
flexibility.
Finally, retail and commercial are interchangeable. One of the original intents
of redevelopment was to broader the shoulders of the season. This won't
happen if the village is filled with offices and warehouses. There needs to be
retail to draw people in, all year. One trap is having too much non - retail
commercial. This can solve itself without being too specific.
He urged the Board to adopt the text amendment as drafted. It's been through a
lot of work and care. They need to move on to the next step. There will always
be problems but they can work through most of them.
Susan Quatre said that in regard to commercial versus retail, a problem is the
cost per square foot for retail. Mr. Kanowski replied that the argument is that
by selling the residential portion, some of that money will subsidize the retail.
The end result is the owner can charge less than stand -alone retail. The other
thing is that the new buildings will have a European feel, with a landmark
building with the clock tower, plazas and other things that will draw people.
Nothing now there lends itself to that.
The group then discussed the floor area ratios and concerns about height and
whether adjoining residential areas will be impacted. Ms. Quatre said that she
Dave Leland said that commercial is the umbrella, and retail is a component.
There can be specialty commercial, convenience commercial, services and so
on. Those are details for a development agreement. The best way to do that is
with business principles. The burden is on the developer and the SROA to
achieve balance.
The same applies to housing; they want diversity; not a project but a
community. This prohibits building all small units. These issues have been
anticipated. It is more demanding to work with a set of principles rather than
requirements. Both parties want the project to be successful.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 16 of 22 Pages
In regard to capping, considering diversity, it would not be economically viable.
These concerns will get more than adequate attention through the development
agreement. The SROA is a hugely successful group with sufficient leadership,
financial base and capacity to see this through.
Ms. Craghead said she was approached by the applicant, who agrees they could
record deed restrictions that this won't move forward until the development
agreement is in place. The text amendment could be approved now but
signature delayed until the deed restrictions are in place. This would in essence
run with the land and be recorded against the property, in favor of SROA. The
zone change would not move forward until the agreement is in place. They
have asked that it be adopted today, however.
She said this would give a definite date for the ordinance. The Board could
vote on it on Monday if the deed restrictions are in. This allows some certainty
for the County. This would not require the County to regulate, and gives peace
of mind to the owners who want to see the development agreement done. The
County won't have to try to put it in the ordinance or in a text amendment.
Commissioner Daly said he remembers when Mr. Gray purchased the property.
If he had to go through all this, Sunriver would not exist today. He has gotten
numerous e -mails from people who want this to go forward. Most of the people
at the hearing also want it to. The County should not be involved in the
minutiae; there needs to be an element of trust. They are all putting a lot of
their money into this and safeguards are in place. He is ready to vote now. If
they are willing to put in a deed restriction, that may satisfy the concerns of
some.
John Goodman had a question regarding FAR. He is contractually bound to do
whatever he does through the SROA. He feels the largest private stakeholder
should be involved. Doris Brannan said that the entire development agreement
will be an open forum for the people of Sunriver. Input is welcome from all.
They are trying to have as open a process as possible. There will be a lot of
opportunities to provide input. Of course there will be disagreements but
everyone is welcome to express their concerns. There will be hearings and
everyone can participate.
Commissioner Melton asked if a decision can be appealed. Ms. Craghead
replied that their legal counsel would have to advise them on that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 17 of 22 Pages
Tammy McCloud, attorney, said there is not necessarily a right of appeal. They
could end up in court for a breach of duty or exceeding authority. However, the
process is open. Contractual negotiations could be done in executive session
but the SROA board has chosen not to do that. If they have a quorum, it will be
open to all. They are already getting a lot of input. Sunriver Resort's testimony
shows that they will be a large player in the process.
Commissioner Luke stated that they need to move forward at some point. It
will never be perfect for everyone. It has been a long process already and there
is frustration all around, and the process should address everyone's concerns.
He would like to see the development agreement reflected in the ordinance. It
sets precedence to register it against the land. There are issues to address, but
this needs to move forward.
Ms. Craghead said that if it is in the ordinance, it would have to be in the text
itself. There could be no zone change unless the development agreement is in
place. They cannot record everything. It could be a requirement of the
application for a zone change, by adding one line to the text.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that it would only apply to Sunriver. It won't
affect other communities without revising Code. Ms. Craghead added that
Sunriver is the only unincorporated urban area in the County.
Commissioner Daly asked what is the difference from proposing a deed
restriction. Ms. Craghead replied that the deed restricts just the property. There
isn't much of a practical difference. The deed restriction would affect a future
buyer. Will Groves added that other lands in the district would not be bound by
the deed restriction. If it were in the text, it would bind the entire district.
John Goodman said that the Code would be cleaner if it was not Sunriver
specific. Commissioner Luke stated that Code is not that general across the
County. This zone stands alone and is not applicable in other places.
Ms. Craghead recommended they close the hearing and the record, and direct
staff to include a line in the text amendment that part of the application requires
including a copy of the signed development agreement between the applicant
and the SROA. She could bring it back on Monday and the Board could adopt
it with that language.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 18 of 22 Pages
The Commissioners agreed that it would be appropriate to bring it before the
Board on Monday, June 30. They had no problem with the emergency clause.
Commissioner Luke then closed the hearing and the record.
DALY: Move approval of the recommendation presented by Legal
Counsel.
MELTON: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items
9. Signature of Letters Correcting the Term Dates of Reappointments to the
Deschutes County Audit Committee: Scot Langton and Jim Keller, through
June 30, 2009
10. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Andrea Shartel from the
Commission on Children & Families' Board, and Thanking Her for Her Service
11. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Kelly Smith from the
Deschutes County Planning Commission, and Thanking Him for His Service
12. Signature of Letters Accepting the Resignation of Ed Criss and Darrell Gavette
from the South County Financial Assistance Citizen Advisory Committee, and
Thanking Them for Their Service
13. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -058, Transferring Appropriations for the
Bethlehem Inn Fund
14. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -067, Transferring Appropriations to the
Transient Room Tax Fund and the Welcome Center Fund from the General
Fund
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 19 of 22 Pages
15. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -068, Transferring Appropriations in the
Video Lottery Fund
16. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -069, Transferring Appropriations in the
District Attorney Fund
17. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -070, Transferring Appropriations within the
Sheriff's Office Fund
18. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -091, Transferring Appropriations in the
Property Management Department Fund
19. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -092, Transferring Appropriations to the
Special Transportation Fund
20. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -093, Transferring Appropriations within the
Adult Parole & Probation Fund
21. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -094, Transferring Appropriations within the
Legal Counsel Fund
22. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -095, Amending Resolution No. 2007 -133,
Transferring Appropriations Affecting the Community Development
Department Reserve Funds and the General Fund
23. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -096,
Fair & Expo Center Fund
24. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -098,
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Fund
25. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -099,
Public Land Corner Preservation Fund
26. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -100,
Natural Resource Protection Fund
27. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -101,
Healthy Start Prenatal Fund
28. Approval of Minutes:
• Business Meetings of June 9 and 16
• Work Session of June 2
Transferring Appropriations within the
Transferring Appropriations within the
Transferring Appropriations within the
Transferring Appropriations within the
Transferring Appropriations within the
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 20 of 22 Pages
29. Economic Development Grant Requests
None were offered.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
30. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District in the Amount of
$10,692.19.
MELTON: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
31. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the Extension /4 -H County Service District in the Amount of
$324.61.
MELTON: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
32. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $397,573.52.
MELTON: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 21 of 22 Pages
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
33. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No.
2008 -353, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Department of Human Services Regulating the Administration of Federal
Behavioral Rehabilitation Services for Juveniles.
MELTON: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: MELTON: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
DATED this 25th Day of June 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
1,1‘1,t, (1 4 (
ney)
lton, Vice Chair
hae M. Da y
ommissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting. Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 22 of 22 Pages
0
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960
(541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHLTTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak
should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign -up cards provided. Please
use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you
to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject
of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing.
2. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Document No. 2008 -348, a Grant
Agreement with the Oregon Department of Agriculture regarding Integrated
Vegetation Management Programs — Dan Sherwin, Road Department
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2008 -303, A Grant
Application to the Department of Transportation for Bike Lane and Sidewalk
Improvements in Terrebonne — George Kolb, Road Department
4. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Document No. 2008 -322, an
Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of
Human Services regarding Mental Health, Developmental Disability and
Addiction Services — Sherri Pinner, Mental Health Department
5. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Document No. 2008 -352, An
Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department
of Human Services regarding Administration of Federal Behavioral
Rehabilitation Services for Juveniles — Ken Hales and /or Deevy Holcomb,
Corrections
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 1 of 9 Pages
6. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2008 -314, a Contract for
Subgrant with MountainStar Family Relief Nursery to Provide Child Abuse
Intervention Services — Diane Treadway, Commission on Children & Families
7. WORK SESSION on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision Denying a
Non -farm Dwelling on a Parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Applicant:
Nash) — Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel
8. A PUBLIC HEARING (continued) on Amendments to Create a Town Center
District in the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community (Files PA -0706 and
TA -07 -6) — Staff Report, Comments, Ordinance — Terri Hansen Payne,
Community Development
CONSENT AGENDA
9. Signature of Letters Correcting the Term Dates of Reappointments to the
Deschutes County Audit Committee: Scot Langton and Jim Keller, through
June 30, 2009
10. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Andrea Shartel from the
Commission on Children & Families' Board, and Thanking Her for Her Service
11. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Kelly Smith from the
Deschutes County Planning Commission, and Thanking Him for His Service
12. Signature of Letters Accepting the Resignation of Ed Criss and Darrell Gavette
from the South County Financial Assistance Citizen Advisory Committee, and
Thanking Them for Their Service
13. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -058, Transferring Appropriations for the
Bethlehem Inn Fund
14. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -067, Transferring Appropriations to the
Transient Room Tax Fund and the Welcome Center Fund from the General
Fund
15. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -068, Transferring Appropriations in the
Video Lottery Fund
16. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -069, Transferring Appropriations in the
District Attorney Fund
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 2 of 9 Pages
17. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -070, Transferring Appropriations within the
Sheriff's Office Fund
18. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -091, Transferring Appropriations in the
Property Management Department Fund
19. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -092, Transferring Appropriations to the
Special Transportation Fund
20. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -093, Transferring Appropriations within the
Adult Parole & Probation Fund
21. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -094, Transferring Appropriations within the
Legal Counsel Fund
22. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -095, Amending Resolution No. 2007 -133,
Transferring Appropriations Affecting the Community Development
Department Reserve Funds and the General Fund
23. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -096, Transferring Appropriations within the
Fair & Expo Center Fund
24. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -098, Transferring Appropriations within the
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Fund
25. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -099, Transferring
Public Land Corner Preservation Fund
26. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -100, Transferring
Natural Resource Protection Fund
27. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -101, Transferring
Healthy Start Prenatal Fund
28. Approval of Minutes:
• Business Meetings of June 9 and 16
• Work Session of June 2
29. Economic Development Grant Requests
Appropriations within the
Appropriations within the
Appropriations within the
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda
Page 3 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
30. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1
County Service District
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
31. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the
Extension/4 -H County Service District
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
32. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County
33. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388 - 6572.)
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 200;
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Thursday, June 26, 2008
9:00 a.m. Quarterly Update — Fair & Expo Center
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Update — Commission on Children & Families
Monday, June 30, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
5:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with the City of La Pine Council, in La Pine
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 3, 2008
8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, in Sisters
Friday, July 4, 2008
Most County offices will be closed to observe the July 4th Holiday
Monday, July 7, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
11:00 a.m. Commission on Children & Families' Interviews
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 5 of 9 Pages
Thursday, July 10, 2008
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond
12:00 noon Audit Committee Meeting
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 17,2008
2:00 p.m. Joint Meeting of Commissioners and Fair Board, at Fair/Expo Center
Monday, July 21, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, July 28, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 4, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 200
Page 6 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 18, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
12 noon Regular Meeting of Board of Commissioners and Department Directors
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 25, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, September 1, 2008
Most County offices will be closed to observe the Labor Day Holiday
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Thursday, September 4, 2008
10:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with District Attorney
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Community Development Department
1:30 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Road Department
Monday, September 8, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Mental Health Department
1:00 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with Health Department
Wednesday, September 15, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 17, 2008
8:00 a.m. Public Affairs Counsel Conference Call — Legislative Update
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
9:00 a.m. Semi - annual Meeting with the County Clerk
10:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Community Justice
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 8 of 9 Pages
Monday, September 22, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
9:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Fair & Expo Center
10:00 a.m. Semi - annual Meeting with Assessor
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Commission on Children & Families
Monday, September 29s 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
9:00 a.m. Regular Bi- monthly Meeting with Congressional Staff
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Page 9 of 9 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960
(541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org
ADDITION TO AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Document No. 2008 -353, an
Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of Human
Services Regulating the Administration of Federal Behavioral Rehabilitation
Services for Juveniles — Deevy Holcomb and /or Ken Hales, Juvenile Community
Justice
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: 5Au P L�wiS
Mailing Address:
Phone #: 53
E -mail Address4evL.„�
Date: -- 25 og'
Subject: Sao t "( q a,
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card (Sc. turn
it in to a County staff person.
r,VaI:;:5i)-
Mailing Address:
Phone #: `; ]
E -mail Address:
Date:.
!�J
Subject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it 'n to a Count st ff person.
Name: \-) ob
Mailin Addre s: c2
Phone #: C (13
E -mail Ad res :
Date: SI e-S
Subject: or\Y `(),,
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a Cou ty staff person.
Name:
Mailing Address:
At
S'W tt,
Phone #:
E-mail Address:
Date:
ubject : -r > r 14141.
4411 '16-% '" 1 CC
'rev
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: 1A1-tIVID
Mailing Address:
L,
(LA) vvio
(s)
Phone #: ).
E-mail Address:
,
Date: ,
Subject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: 6u--wArle, CarVer
Mailing Address: rIoS tfpelo*C+,
bv,5-1(1)(4 q3311
Phone #: 64( -5-q3-- 13t1-0
E-mail Address:
Date: tvi.t, 2 Zoo
Subject: -,-(An river F la p(
4, have on11 4 frien (L5'
CIAO"
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name:
Mailing Address:
e 26 5"
76,7
Phone #: .61/
E-mail Address:
Date: 6/A5/p0 08
Subject:
(: )
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: 1.00-0A Wt12
Mailing Address: I3v:m50,ALLe
9 70&9 / Mttort:'
Phone #: 5�3s�s7 I I �� Swww"--,
E -mail Address: o(t,(jg ) ,- g,eA
Date: Dc,
Subject: 76
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Clqi
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: 3-level gun✓1ei/- SJyv�vt��s I
Mailing Address: r. d,, 3c.a 7
Phone #: s93 - 783
E -mail Address:
Date: z5 ���►� c
Subject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Jo
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a ounty staff person.
Name: 10
Mailing Address:
l � i P Lv4-i.
Phone #: £ "/ 1'?
E -mail Address:
Date: 'l S
Subject: ' ! -
I F F YOU WISH TO TESTIFY S'
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: Dtr
orzi 5
Mailing Acjdress:
/g(70 .µ l
Phone #: { /�- 5-9 - :3
E -mail Address: dbro,t, ere;) of 4n
Date: -�
Subject: Sep e 6 ,�.
r t. hr:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card &. turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: J (ES LELAl�
Mailing Address: v o.)667
calk zoo xJz 7 77'Y
Phone #: 6517
E -mail Address-
j e- -Por?rra'
Date: (,_25- - 052
Subject: 5► >u � ��: rbde
co
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY&(
Please complete this card & turn
it init. o a County staff person.
Name: O11-
Mailing ddress:
V77 -NWW 'dti
Phone #:
E -mail Address: ti,a pe,zAgf , ifit
Date: 6P I
2�•��
Subject: 'T1 Jj Gv z` v- 7 --ftor_
-rra- Akoww41-
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY "
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name:
Mailing Address: s t-Pc,rr,
Phone #: /
E-mail Address:
Date: 6
Subject: Ctv kY1 --71,2-VI I
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: Lew A 1,),f,r Name: in to a County staff person.
e: k■ii t S'i '4
Mailing Address: ig/640 COrtitmemo Mailing Address:
.;,.. lqo Zox .40. 668 4:e
Phone #: 51-4/ • Phone #: S-q 3
E-mail Address: 1.0) C. '1,„E , E-mail Address:
Date: e ‘24,,,
"wrs'A — Date: C/2-tla'
Subject: --viAitj (Gal.& /5-arvilli 41(4,„_, Subject: S4,,v,,v,,tv, 711(A,k, r
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY cz,)
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
\lame: A„ r ‹,-
Aailing Address
r-Ar
)
-1
'hone #:
Address:
)ate:
ubject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
'Li
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: y (80,04
Mailing Address: ita,Isde
Phone #: jot/
E-mail Address:
Date: e
Subject: /ex"-.T. litte,464e:wr
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY (1(e
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a Counttstaff person
Name: 'RiAtsz_
Mailing Address: p,
4,4 cc?
Phone #: (stAt
E-mail Address:
Date: Ca ta
Subject:
a
t
SUNRIVER OWNERS ASSOCIATION
MAINTAINING SUNRIVER AS A PREMIER RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT COMMUNITY PROTECTING
AND ENHANCING ITS QUALITY OF LIFE, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PROPERTY VALUES.
June 25, 2008
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Board of County Commissioners
for Deschutes County
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
Re: SilverStar Destinations, LLC applications
Town Center District — Sunriver Village Mall
County File Nos. PA -07 -6 and TA -07 -6
Dear Commissioners Luke, Melton and Daly:
As indicated in prior testimony, I am the president of the Board of Directors for the Sunriver
Owners Association ( "SROA "), and I submit this written testimony into the record for the above -
referenced applications by SilverStar Destinations, LLC ( "SilverStar ").
The SROA Board fully endorses the text amendments before you. The SROA Board held a
special meeting last Friday, June 20, 2008 and specifically approved all the revisions to the text
for the creation of a Town Center District in Sunriver.
We submit this testimony to highlight a couple of different areas for you:
1. SROA Investment in the Process: In reaching its support for the Town Center
District in Sunriver, the SROA Board devoted an immeasurable amount of time
and energy analyzing the proposed text and its potential impacts, consulting with
expert consultants and thoroughly studying the proposal. This is a process the
SROA Board and its subcommittees started almost 18 months ago, a process that
has been on -going since it started. The SROA Board's determination to support
the TC District can in no way be described as a hasty decision or as a "rubber
stamp" approval of SilverStar's request. We are certain that if SilverStar was
asked whether the SROA "cow- tailed" to decisions based on SilverStar's
development desires, it would surely advise you that the SROA has been diligent
in its negotiations and dealings with SilverStar. The resulting product, the text
amendments before you, are the result of the SROA holding firm on issues it
believes are important to the community — revitalization of the commercial core
5539.49\32256 .doc
57455 ABBOT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 3278 • SUNRIVER,OREGON 97707 • (541)593 -2411 • TOLL FREE (888) 284 -6639 • FAX (541) 593 -5r 69
www.sunriverowners.org
Board of County Commissioner
for Deschutes County
June 25, 2008
Page 2
of Sunriver in a manner that enhances the overall community while providing
reasonable opportunities for the project's success.
2. February Vote regarding Sale of SROA Land: The SROA Board wishes to point
out that no one can know with any certainly why more than 60% of Sunriver
owners did not vote in favor of selling SROA land to SilverStar. The ballot
question presented was not a simple "yes" or "no" question on whether owners
supported creation of a Town Center District or a simple "yes" or "no" question
on whether owners supported SilverStar's redevelopment plan. Instead, it asked
whether certain SROA land should be sold to SilverStar under a specified set of
sale terms. While certainly a "no" vote could have indicated that a particular
owner did not support the TC District or SilverStar, it is also equally possible that
the "no" vote was the result of the owner's disagreement with the purchase price
or payment terms. As a result, any characterization that the February 2008 vote
proves that the Sunriver community is split on the text amendments before you
would be inaccurate. Only two facts can truly be gleaned from the February 2008
vote: (1) a majority of Sunriver owners did approve the land sale to SilverStar
and (2) the required super- majority did not.
3. Floor Area Ratio: As indicated in the written testimony submitted June 4, 2008,
the SROA Board fully endorses use of the floor area ratio ( "FAR ") methodology
as the tool to regulate potential impacts from the Town Center District. After
thorough examination, the SROA Board believes that in terms of a tool for
controlling and regulating population impacts, FAR is superior to a "units per
acre" methodology. FAR places an absolute limitation on the bulk and mass of
structures throughout a Town Center District. Further, it has been established as a
device that works in other jurisdictions. Finally, FAR provides the needed
flexibility to maximize the likelihood of success of a redevelopment project.
The SROA Board thanks this Board of County Commissioners for the on -going ability to
comment on these applications and for the attention given to them. The SROA Board of
Directors encourages this Board to approve the text amendments before you and allow the next
steps in the revitalization of the commercial core area of Sunriver.
Respectfully submitted
644.1 414044444-1
DORIS BRANNAN
President of the
Sunriver Owners Association
5539.49\322564.doc
VILLAGE AT SUNRIVER
541.593.8704 1 57100 Beaver Drive 1 village @villageatsunriver.com
memorandum
To: Terri Hansen Payne (Deschutes County Planning), Citizens for Sunriver, Bill Peck (SROA)
Copy: Dave Leland (Leland Consulting Group
From: Mark Smuland
Date: 6/20/08
Re: Save Sunriver Website and Public Testimony Inaccuracies
Based upon recent updates on an opposition website (www.savesunriver.org), as well as testimony
given at the 6/4/08 County Commission hearing and recent written testimony, SilverStar Destinations
LLC ( "SSD ") wishes to clarify some inaccuracies that have been communicated.
SAVE SUNRIVER WEBSITE INACCURACIES (from the Zoning Proposal Status page)
1. SilverStar and their consultants, who have also been retained by the SROA Board and are now by
default also "our" consultants, have proposed a change to the density language within the text
amendment.
Response: In response to Herb Adelman's lawsuit, a settlement judge has recommended (and SSD,
SROA and Adelman have agreed) that SROA and SSD should enter into a more comprehensive
"development agreement" to supersede the 12/06 agreement between SROA and SSD. To that end,
SROA has engaged James Lewis as a planning consultant to SROA. Mr. Lewis has no affiliation with
SSD. In addition, SROA and SSD have jointly engaged Mr. Dave Leland, a national and international
authority on mixed use town centers and downtown revitalization. Mr. Leland was initially engaged
by SSD, and his experience and stature have impressed SROA, the settlement judge and Mr.
Adelman sufficiently to have all parties concur that he should be so engaged. Mr. Leland
recommended the use of a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 in lieu of 22 residential units /acre as the Town
Center District code text was originally written. This change has been approved by the SROA Board
and is currently being reviewed by Deschutes County Planning staff.
2. "Analysis" regarding Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 versus 22 units of residential density per acre, or 500
residential units district -wide. Save Sunriver claims that FAR could lead to more residential units in
the Village than was originally proposed.
Response: On its website, Save Sunriver has taken certain of SilverStar's exhibits for analyzing FAR
and modified them to suit their own personal biases. In so doing, the opposition has excerpted a
small portion of the overall information presented by SSD and has used it out of context in an
attempt to confuse the public. The facts surrounding FAR's application to residential unit numbers
are noted below:
a. Residential Units versus Occupants: SSD has shown that with an approximate average residence
size of 1,280 sqft, an FAR of 1.0 and 22 units per acre would produce an equal number of
residential units on SSD's 17 acre site.
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
b. Occupants: SSD has shown in further analysis that the maximum number of occupants in the
Village for a fixed FAR is likely be slightly less if more, smaller residences are built rather than a
smaller number of larger units. As such, the "size of the pie" stays the same but the pie can be
sliced into more pieces with no additional impacts.
c. Residential Unit Size: Save Sunriver portrays a maximum unit size of 1,100 sqft in their tables.
However, without a limit on total building mass, average residential unit sizes could theoretically
exceed 2,000 sq ft under a unit /acre measurement. Such a mix would clearly result in several
hundred more maximum occupants than under a FAR approach. The primary reason for
changing to FAR is that nobody knows what size of residence prospective buyers will want in the
Village, and unlike FAR, a unit /acre limitation would restrict the ability of the development to
adjust to market demand and preferences. The opposition states that SilverStar's prior
testimony estimated average residence size at 1,100 sq ft. This was, in fact, our planned
average unit size -- at a prior point in this land use process, when the estimated project size was
larger, and planned unit type, size and mix were significantly different than they are today. The
change in circumstances illustrates precisely why a more flexible measurement tool (FAR) has
been requested.
d. Below Grade Garages: Below grade parking will not count against a FAR space cap. Save
Sunriver contends that SSD promised that all residential parking will be below grade and
therefore no reductions should be made in the FAR tables. This is a blatant misstatement. In
reality, parking will be below grade for mixed -use structures. In non -mixed use multi - family
structures away from the retail areas of the Village, parking may be provided on the ground
floor and would count against the FAR space cap, thereby reducing the amount of space
available for residences.
3. The language, at last draft, only provided a requirement for 150 square feet of commercial space for
each residential unit. This provides for even less commercial area than was provided for under the
85,000 square foot minimum that the Deschutes County Planning Commission rejected and called for
a 120,000 square foot minimum,
Response: False. 150 sq ft of commercial space per residential unit provision has been included in
the text amendment for over a year. The number was agreed to in order to achieve 85,000 sqft of
commercial space at a cap of (583) residential units. In reality, this provision was aimed at
maintaining a balance of uses through the development process and was ENTIRELY disconnected
with any minimum aggregate commercial space standard.
Furthermore, under FAR, the number of residences can vary based upon market conditions and
desires. Nonetheless, SSD has agreed with SROA to provide a minimum of 85,000 sqft of
commercial space in the Town Center. This 85,000 sqft figure was agreed to based upon research
on the make -up of the Sunriver community and the future scale of the Village development that will
be proposed in the future. Although the proposed Village development has reduced in size by
nearly 40 %, SSD has made no request to reduce its minimum commercial space commitment
proportionally.
The ultimate amount of commercial space could be higher if the community supports the Village's
commercial tenants. As stated by Mr. Leland in his recent presentations, the requirement for
2
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
120,000 sq ft of commercial space, as recommended by the Planning Commission, is a recipe for
failure. This condition was apparently based upon the current amount of space available in the
current mall. However, approximately 25% of the current Village Mall space is currently vacant, the
majority of which is dramatically underperforming. Mr. Leland's retail and spending analysis of the
Sunriver commercial community concluded that there is enough aggregate business transacting in
the mall to properly support approximately 40,000 sq ft of total commercial space. Building more
commercial space than the market can support will lead to empty space, detract from "vibrancy"
and result in a Village where operators struggle financially. As such, subject to SilverStar's
commitment of not less than 85,000 sq ft, the actual amount of commercial space developed needs
to be driven by market demand...not by County Code.
4. The current language goes against both of the substantive conditions provided for by the Deschutes
County Planning Commission...that the density be reduced and the commercial space be increased.
The current text amendment language calls for more residential units and less commercial space.
Response: Incorrect. There has been no reduction in the amount of commerical space from our
initial text application, nor does the current text call for any greater number of residential units. the
Planning Commission recommended a maximum of 500 residential units be permitted in the zone —
and the current application makes no attempt to increase that — but rather, to measure it in a more
relevant way. In fact, the proposed FAR text provides a new limitation (total square footage in the
zone), and allows the development to proceed with residential unit sizes that can be adjusted to
meet market demand. If the market demands smaller units, there may be more "doors" in the
project than 22 units /acre, but no more residential space. Potentially, this results in less residential
square footage than could have been built under the units /acre measurement. Regarding
commercial space, the Planning Commission's suggested condition required that development be
limited on the first floor of the project until the market "proved" that it would not absorb or support
120,000 sq ft of new commercial space. There was no proposed condition from the Planning
Commission that more commercial space actually be constructed. SilverStar believes that a Code -
driven mandate for minimum commercial space would be improper, and should be left to industry
experts and the realities of the marketplace.
S. What has changed? Actually since the Planning Commission vote and the Special Election on the
land sale was held which showed definitively that the Sunriver Owners are very much split on this
issue.
Response: Nothing has changed — other than SSD's project site reducing in size by 40 %. Our
commitment to build commercial space remains unchanged at 85,000 sq ft minimum, and the FAR
cap on total project size provides a more effective tool to regulate development and maximum
occupancy while providing product -type flexibility. As a reminder, 57% (a clear majority) of Sunriver
owners voting in the special election voted to sell SROA land to SSD, which would have paved the
way for a much larger development than is currently proposed. Since that vote, "Citizens for
Sunriver" has been formed in an effort to support redevelopment of the mall and to ensure that
accurate information is disimmenitated to the public. Since that time, both written and oral
testimony has shown an overwhelming percentage of support. Testimony at the April 30 hearing
was 10 to 1 in favor of the current application, and supporters outweighed opposition 30 to 7 in the
latest round of written testimony. Despite what the opposition claims, the SROA board and County
Commissioners have witnessed the community's extreme bias in favor of a redevelopment and
approval of the current application.
3
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
6. We would have liked to see a more constructive dialogue in an effort to work toward a compromise
thta would be acceptable to ALL concerned parties. Instead we have gotten a more entrenched
lobby and language that is more pro - residential high- density and less commercial focused than ever.
Response: Since October 2007, SSD has invited a dialogue with Save Sunriver members. To date,
only one such meeting has been requested, and it took place immediately. SSD also paid to have
Dave Leland personally sit down with Save Sunriver's supposed leadership. SSD continues to have
an "open door" policy with the community and stakeholders — and has engaged proponents and
opponents in the same manner,
7. We do hope we can all work together to achieve a model that will provide the renewed mall that we
would all desire without the total sacrifice of what makes Sunriver so special. We need to be
respectful of the impacts we have on our natural environment and our neighbors.
Response: Agreed. SSD's mixed -use town center is a development style that has proven successful
commercially while remaining very environmentally friendly. Mixed -use developments generate
substantially less vehicle trips, and permit the application of community -wide initiatives to reduce
energy consumption, emissions and facility duplication. Single- family home developments (like
most of the 4,100 homes in Sunriver, and the residential components of Pronghorn, Caldera Springs,
Tetherow, Eagle Crest, Black Butte Ranch, etc) cannot compete with mixed use projects in terms of
their environmental sensitivity.
Where we may not agree is that the current mall is what makes Sunriver special. Rather — we
believe that a SUCCESSFUL mall -- which the Village Mall was a decade ago — was a critical, special
part of the Sunriver experience. However, the outdated development style and dilapidated
buildings in the mall now pose a significant risk for Sunriver. The solution comes from a
combination of state -of- the -art facilities, energized spaces, diverse tenants (comprised of successful
current tenants as well as new ones), better circulation, more flexible and useful public spaces,
environmentally - sensitive building practices and technologies, and a unique blend of new residential
unit types to meet the shifting demand of Sunriver's full- and part -time resident base. By working
diligently to retain as many of the mature trees in the current commercial core, we will create a new
commercial and social center for the Sunriver community and South Deschutes County, while being
respectful of the natural environment and our neighbors.
8. We must carefully consider the impacts that building heights, population concentrations and their
effects on parking, traffic, facilities and infrastructure use will have. We must remember that
Sunriver has been very successful over its first 40 years and we do not want to over react and ruin
what attracted us all to Sunriver to begin with. And we must remember that, no matter in Sunriver
or the surrounding community we may all live, the changes to the mall will have an effect on all of
us.
Response: Agreed. These goals will come to play during the Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) process,
which will follow the new zone creation. This process — not the code language itself -- will address
parking, traffic, infrastructure, design and other impacts. Save Sunriver representatives have told us
that they do not have experience with mixed use development styles, and they don't understand
the commercial, economic or infrastructure impacts of our proposed project. By contrast, SSD has
studied these factors very carefully, and has hired world leaders in the area of mixed -use and resort
4
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
village developments. We look forward to engaging the entire community during the CSP process to
ensure that the Village will improve the Sunriver community for future generations.
We have offered Save Sunriver access to these consultants so they can better understand the theory
and functions of our proposed project — but they have declined the invitation, electing instead to
focus on diversionary tactics and promulgating false information. Their statement that they "wish to
engage in constructive dialogue ", is disingenuous — they have openly stated that they wish to
control the development standards (stated as a condition of dismissal of Mr. Adelman's lawsuit), to
the exclusion of the opinions of the rest of the community. We suggest that their efforts to improve
the Sunriver community would be better spent in dialogue with the community, as SilverStar has,
rather than as obstructionists demanding more rights than other citizens in the Sunriver community.
9. (Excerpted): Save Sunriver website statements to the effect that the upcoming county commission
hearing is the "only opportunity to have input'; "future steps [have] no public input required ", and
"this may be our one and only chance to influence the future development within the mall."
Response: Incorrect. The CSP and other entitlement processes will include SROA- required public
meetings in Sunriver, as well as public hearings at the county level (presided over by the hearings
officer). The county hearings will be open to the public and will include public testimony. The text
amendment is the first step of many, and multiple opportunities will exist for public input to help to
shape the future of Sunriver. We anticipate and look forward to the public's involvement in these
future processes.
10. SilverStar's new proposal does not incorporate the density reduction called for by the Planning
Commission which was a condition of their approval. It now calls for a 1.0 FAR measure to be used
allowing in excess of 500 residences on the smaller 17 acre site. It also still has the requested
changes and exemptions to current parking requirements, height limitations, setbacks, and view
protection regulations. The current plan still incorporates a core of high - density high -rise buildings
around a main street flow, with sidewalks for pedestrians versus the current pedestrian only core of
the Village. The buildings shown as mixed use can be up to 70+ feet high with current language
related to grade measurements (allowing up to 10 feet above lowest grade) and a 10 foot allowance
for architectural items at the top of the buildings. Combined with one building - the footprint of
which can be up to 40,000 square feet - allowed to be up to 85+ feet high (with the same noted items
within the zoning language) Sunriver would have some of the tallest buildings in Oregon East of the
cascades!
Response: Save Sunriver is using the issue of building height as a "scare tactic" in an attempt to
spread fear within the community. The reality of building heights is this:
a. Tall buildings in Bend have been built without the same requirements for architectural
review or gabled roofs which reduce the height of the building at the street. These
elements will be required in the Village by Sunriver design review standards.
b. Varying building heights allow for variety in a community and a heirarchy of buildings. So
architectural elements and varied height limits are a good thing, not a bad thing. If code
language prohibited variation of building maximum heights, developers would likely build
each building to the same limit, resulting in a monotonous collection of generic buildings.
c. Architectural elements such as towers and chimneys are small in size and do not
significantly affect the community or building mass. Height extensions for architectural
5
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
elements promote high quality architecture which supports a primary long term goal of the
community.
Other changes to the Deschutes County Code are being made because Deschutes County has never
had a Town Center built yet. Most commercial centers in Deschutes County are strip centers which
are clearly inappropriate for Sunriver. Regarding views, we are certainly not attempting to block
anybody's views. The views from adjacent homes (and nearly all homes in Sunriver) are terrain
views of the surrounding forest. As previously indicated, we are making every intent to save as
many mature trees as possible. In addition, our balloon height tests have shown that the heights
allowed in the text amendment will not stand out from the existing forest canopy.
11. Village at Sunriver presentation. This is a new presentation prepared by SilverStar's consultants for
the Commissioner's. It is focused on an urban renewal approach to the mall area - which we feel is
not consistent with the nature of Sunriver, that of an urban center in need of renewal.
Response: The opponents have missed the point -- urban renewal is not a development style. It is a
financial strategy for a community to focus their future tax dollars to specifically improve dilapidated
assets within a community. Regarding development style, opposition leadership has admitted that
they do not understand the relevant commercial drivers or the mixed -use Town Center
development style we have proposed. In truth, Sunriver is an "urban unincorporated community" —
the only one in Deschutes County. What gives it that special distinction is the inclusion of a Village
area and business park — the necessary components of a self- sufficient community, with locally -
supplied commercial services to serve the resident base. This was John Gray's vision. SSD has
always seen that as a critical, distinguishing feature of Sunriver that separates it from other resort
communities where minimal (if any) commercial services are offered. We believe that "renewal" of
Sunriver's commercial core will provide us the best chance to create lasting success for the Sunriver
community.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY INACCURACIES (from 6/4/08 County Commission Hearing)
The following are interpretations of statements were made at this hearing and our responses are
attached.
1. Larry Weber Testimony
a. Residential area will be increased 15% over previous approvals.
Response: There was no limit on residential area in previous proposals. There was a limit on
the number of residential units but units could be of unlimited size. FAR will now limit all
commercial and residential space within the TC District.
b. There is a complete disregard for solar setbacks and open space.
Response: Solar setbacks apply to all residential properties outside of the TC district, consistent
with current County Code. Common recreational space will be supplied at a minimum rate of
150 sqft per residential unit. Landscaping will be provided at the county rate of 15% of the lot
area. Unlike other areas of Sunriver where public space takes the form of meadows, parks,
rivers, etc., the Village will include activated plazas, amenities, and other activated spaces where
6
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
the community can come together. These unique, critical community assets work in concert
with the rest of Sunriver to provide a variety of local experiences.
2. Craig Carver Testimony
a. 1 am a "simpleton ". Give me something simple like units /acre to control density.
Response: Mr, Carver indicates that he is a sophisticated real estate developer from California.
An FAR of 1.0 is quite simple: 1 square foot of developed space for 1 square foot of site area.
As county staff can attest, there was nothing simple about prior text's calculation of unit density
per acre.
b. SROA land is being counted to meet the Village's open space requirement.
Response: False. Only land owned by the applicant is being used to meet recreation and
landscape space requirements.
c. They need more transportation studies.
Response: Another more detailed transportation study is required at rezoning and at the CSP
level. These will be provided with their respective applications, when the applicant proposes a
development plan from which traffic impact can be measured.
d. They need a recreation study.
Response: Incorrect. There is no Deschutes County requirement that a commercial
development study off -site recreational assets or demand. However, the SROA is currently
working on a Sunriver -wide recreation study. We understand that it will be presented to the
SROA homeowners later this summer.
e. FAR will allow up to 40 residential units per acre. It is a ticket to abuse density. This is why many
mixed -use projects fail.
Response: FAR does not regulate residences per acre. FAR limits the maximum amount of
developable area. The market, along with other constraints such as traffic impacts, building
heights, site coverage limits and parking requirements dictate how many residential units can be
built. These constraints provide the assurances that a community needs to control impact,
while providing the developer the flexibility to make a project financially viable and meet the
desires of the marketplace.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY INACCURACIES (from letters submitted to the county
between 5/28/08 and 6/17/08)
The following statements were made in oral testimony on April 30, or subsequently in one of the
speaker's four letters to the County Commission. SilverStar's responses also follow.
1. Don Hutchinson Testimony
a. "All of the key issues the Planning Commission voted to include as conditions for the approval
have been dropped — and in the case of residential density and commercial space minimums
have gone exactly opposite of what was expressed."
Response: Incorrect. As stated above, the Planning Staff rejected most of the Planning
Commission's recommendations. The Planning Staff report supports SilverStar's application as
7
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
drafted. SilverStar and Staff agreed that several of the planning commission recommendations
were inappropriate for a zoning code and should be left to the marketplace and /or future
development applications to review. Residential density, as proposed, will be regulated by a
different mechanic that may or may not produce more doors, but will not produce more
residential bodies in the development than previous drafts. The commercial space minimums
(provided, appropriately, in a development agreement and not the draft Code language),
remains unchanged at 85,000 sq ft, and built on a 150 sq ft -to -1 unit ratio.
b. "....the Comprehensive Plan designations language for the Town Center District includes not only
lands owned by SilverStar but also the adjoining SROA property within this new zoning
definition....Does this motion now allow SilverStar to utilize the very SROA land involved in the
vote toward the restrictions and allowances within the Town Center zone definitions?
Response: The "target" area of the TC District zone remains unchanged since our May 2007
application. Currently, there are lands included in the TC District eligibility that are not owned
by SilverStar, of which some is owned by SROA. If the owners of such land elect to puruse
rezoning, those lands may be included in the TC District, but there is no proposed code language
that would allow SSD to use current SROA lands to receive additional entitlements for
development on lands it does not own.
c. "As also stated the balloons were not flown at the actual allowed height of buildings per the
current text amendment ". (This is in relation to the balloon height test that was completed in
October, 2007.)
Response: Incorrect. All balloon height testing was monitored by a licensed surveyor and
adjustments were made to the heights to ensure that the heights of the balloons matched the
ridge heights of potential buildings in the future. This process was monitored by the SROA,
Sunriver Resort, and others in the community. To our knowledge, the speaker was not in
attendance when we conducted our observed balloon text.
d. "...the text amendment allows a footprint of up to 45,000 square feet of one building to be 75
feet high plus the allowances previously mentioned — for a total height of up to 95 feet."
Response: Incorrect. The proposed text provides the method for calculating building height, as
well as the exceptions from height calculation. As drafted, the tallest portion of any building will
be 75' from grade. That portion of that one building may not exceed 40,000 sq ft. The
exceptions, including below -grade parking access and spires on building tops operate to create
more variety, architectural interest and other functions that will reduce the scale of the
buildings.
e. "...the text amendment calls for an exception to the county codes for view protection. These
are the very views that are so much a part of Sunriver..."
Response: As we have indicated previously in public testimony and in meetings with county
staff, the only reason that view preservation has been deleted from the Town Center text is
because there is no way to define what a view is. The views from the residential neighborhoods
around the commercial core of Sunriver are to the general forest in the area — not upward to
where a building's ridge height creates an impact. . In addition, setbacks in the proposed Town
8
SilverStar Rebuttal to Inaccurate Testimony 6/19/08
Center District include height restrictions that step down at the perimeter of the site. These
restrictions will protect views of the forest even if they cannot be defined in code form. Tree
retention is a goal of SilverStar and the SROA who will review this issue at the time when an
actual development application is submitted.
9
June 25, 2008
BY HAND DELIVERY
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend OR 97701
Re: Sunriver Plan and Text Amendments
PA- 07- 6/TA -07 -6
Dear Board Members:
Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership ( "SRLP ") firmly supports the redevelopment
of Sunriver Mall with a vibrant and appropriately- scaled mixed use development. Although we
have not appeared on the record in this case, we have been monitoring the applicant's proposal
closely as it has evolved over the past year. Our neutral position has been based largely on the
fact that, while we believe that redevelopment of the mall is in the best interests of the Sunriver
community, we have had reservations about the overall density and scale of the potential
development. Unfortunately, because the applicant has radically changed the proposal to include
floor area ratio (FAR) to control the scale and density of development, we are now forced to
formally oppose the amendments as currently drafted.
We believe that the proposed amendments to the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not contain appropriate safeguards to regulate the
redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall. In particular, the proposed FAR standards, while providing
needed flexibility to the developer, will also allow for a wide range of development options,
many of which are not suitable for the Sunriver community. Although the developer has
provided sketches detailing potential building scale and style, nothing in the proposed
amendments assures that the applicant or subsequent developer will construct the Sunriver Mall
according to the preliminary sketches. Indeed, as currently drafted, the proposed amendments
would allow the applicant —or a subsequent developer —to push the envelope and build a project
which is entirely out of scale for the Sunriver community. Because the proposed amendments do
not mandate a further discretionary review by the County or the Sunriver community, this is the
County's only opportunity to ensure that the Sunriver Mall is redeveloped with appropriately -
scaled buildings and density. While we have no reason to believe that the applicant will not
stand by its word and develop a quality project, it is altogether possible that the current applicant
could sell the property. A third party developer is not likely to consider the Sunriver community
vision and build to fulfill that vision. Rather, a subsequent developer is likely to ask what is
permissible under the applicable standards and build to the maximum extent possible.
June 25, 2008
Page 2
We urge the Board of Commissioners to delay approval of the proposed
amendments until appropriate safeguards are put in place. While this will undoubtedly cause
minor delays, this process will provide all interested parties with a very clear picture of what will
ultimately be constructed. Absent this procedural safeguard, there is no way to ensure that the
Sunriver community's vision will be fulfilled.
As described by the applicant, the intent of the proposal is to "protect and enhance
the commercial core area of Sunriver." Unfortunately, nothing in the proposed amendments
assures the enhancement of the commercial area. To the contrary, the proposed amendments
seem to prefer a new residential core with ancillary commercial development. In other words,
rather than creating a vibrant commercial area, the amendments are primarily geared towards
maximizing residential development, with commercial development provided only as an
afterthought. The following examples highlight some of our primary concerns with the current
proposal.
1. Possible Residential Density Range. As part of its most recent submittal the
applicant submitted a spreadsheet identifying a possible range of residential densities under the
FAR approach. As part of the analysis the applicant selected 22 units per acre as the baseline for
its comparison. It must be noted that the 22 unit per acre standard is not an approved standard
and reflects only the applicant's initial desired residential density. Indeed, the Planning
Commission recommended a density range of 18.9 dwelling units per acre. Provided that the
applicant conforms to the 1:1 FAR, the applicant has considerable latitude to construct any mix
of units. If the applicant elects to construct all studio units, the project could include 910 units
for a density range of nearly 54 units per acre. This far exceeds the Planning Commission's
recommendation and is far outside the range of examples identified by the applicant. Without
appropriate controls to regulate the number of units and total occupant load the County has no
way to effectively control the ultimate density and intensity of the project.
2. Lack of Design Guidelines. Although FAR can be a useful tool to provide
flexibility to a developer, in most communities where FAR is used it is used in conjunction with
strict design guidelines to ensure quality developments. Here, where the County is imposing no
such guidelines, the applicant or a subsequent developer will be able to build to the maximum
extent allowed by the FAR standards with little or no design controls. In challenging economic
times there is often a drive to maximize sellable floor space at the expense of quality design
elements. Although there is no indication that the current applicant proposes anything but a
quality development, the current amendments would allow a development without the interesting
architectural features shown in the applicant's materials. In short, there is no obligation to
construct aesthetically pleasing or architecturally interesting buildings. Moreover, nothing
obligates the applicant to construct anything remotely resembling the sketches and plans
provided to the community. Indeed, the applicant's own materials explicitly state that the
drawings and site plans are "subject to change at any time." Absent strict design guidelines, the
applicant or subsequent developer could maximize the use of FAR and construct a series of
boxes in place of a well articulated and interesting mixed use development. Such an outcome,
June 25, 2008
Page 3
while permitted under the proposed regulations, is hardly the vision shared by the Sunriver
community.
3. Density Transfers. Especially problematic with the current proposal is the
fact that the FAR standards allow the applicant to effectively transfer unused density onto the
site from other areas not owned by the developer. In other words, even if the developer elects to
redevelop only the core 15.5 acres, the proposed regulations allow the developer to transfer
unused density from surrounding property onto the 15.5 -acre site. Assuming that adjacent
property owned by the applicant and the Sunriver Owners' Association ( "SROA ") is zoned TC
and included in the Conceptual Site Plan (which is not prohibited under the proposed
regulations), because the development standards provide that FAR is calculated based on the
entire site, the applicant could utilize any unused density on the applicant's other property and
the SROA property and apply it to the 15.5 acres owned by the applicant. For example, the
regulations would allow the applicant to include the undeveloped properties owned by the SROA
in the southwest corner of the site plan, rights -of -way and the drainage area along Mall Drive
within the Conceptual Site Plan. If left undeveloped or in their present state, the applicant could
effectively "purchase" the unused development rights and transfer any available FAR to the 15.5
acres owned by the applicant. Moreover, it is unclear whether these undeveloped areas would
qualify as landscaping or outdoor recreation spaces under the proposed regulations. If these
areas would count towards the overall landscaping or outdoor recreation areas, the applicant
could shift these amenities from the core development area to an unused corner of the property.
Stated differently, if allowed to transfer development rights to the 15.5 acres owned by the
applicant, the applicant will be allowed to develop a 26.5 -acre project on 15.5 acres. Again,
while there is no indication that the applicant proposes any such transfer, it is imperative that the
Board recognize that the current regulations leave the door wide open for such machinations of
the FAR standards.
4. No obligation to Provide Retail Uses. In the minds of many, the purpose
of the proposed amendments is to create a vibrant, appropriately - scaled commercial core in
Sunriver. Unfortunately, the proposed amendments do no ensure that this will occur. Although
the amendments obligate the developer to maintain a ratio of 150 square feet of commercial
space to one dwelling unit, "commercial space" does not translate into 150 square feet of retail
development. For example, it is not clear whether the hotel would count as commercial, retail,
residential or other something else. It is also not clear whether components of the hotel, such as
meeting areas, banquet facilities, and convention areas would count towards the 150 square foot
ratio. Again, although we have no reason to believe that the applicant proposes to do so, the
applicant or a subsequent developer could maximize the residential FAR, meet the commercial
square footage ratio all without constructing anything resembling a vibrant commercial core.
While we understand that the applicant has signed an agreement with the SROA regarding an
obligation to provide a certain level of commercial development, that agreement can be modified
after adoption of the proposed code amendments. The applicant or any subsequent developer
would then be free to develop within the very loosely drafted language proposed by the
June 25, 2008
Page 4
applicant. At a bare minimum the Board should clarify that the obligation to provide commercial
space translates to a clear obligation to provide a vibrant retail core.
The issues outlined above serve to highlight the fact that the proposed
amendments provide far too much flexibility to the applicant or a subsequent developer. While
all interested parties may not share a common vision for the redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall,
at a minimum, before the Board approves the proposed amendments all interested parties should
have a far clearer idea of what will ultimately be developed. We urge the Board to withhold
approval until appropriate safeguards are included in the TC regulations.
Sincerely,
iii,e/''
Tom Luersen
Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership
Al
'Pet. 2o M1EM#7
Executive Summary and Overview
of the Village at Sunriver Agreement
AGREEMENT... The following is a general summary of the terms of the agreement:
1. SROA agreed to the following:
• Cooperate with the developer on the creation of the new zone.
• Communicate to Deschutes County its approval of the proposed zone revisions.
• Convey title of two parcels of property to SilverStar Destinations in exchange for
equal compensation subject to:
1. Approval of the appraised value by the BOD's; and
2. Favorable approval of the exchange by SROA Owners; and
3. Preparation and approval of a formal "Exchange Agreement ".
2. Developer agreed to the following:
• Creation of a new Town Center District specific and limited to the properties
involved within the Sunriver UUC zone, approved by SROA
• File the necessary land use applications and bear all costs to accomplish the
zone changes and create the new district.
• Obtain approval from SROA for any and all changes to the agreed upon zoning
language for the new district whether initiated by the developer or Deschutes
County.
• Submit a Development Plan of the entire project to SROA for review and
approval.
• The project shall be a mixture of complimentary land uses with a minimum
of 85,000 square feet of ground floor space dedicated to retail, office and
commercial service uses, including a minimum of 15,000 square feet for the sale
of groceries (developer indicated that 85,000 would be the minimum and that
they would probably end up with somewhere between 100,000 to 120,000sq ft).
• The project shall include amenities appropriate to Sunriver, including an ice
skating rink and visitor center.
• Bear all costs associated with transferring property induding costs directly
associated with SROA's conducting a vote to obtain approval of the property
exchange.
• Purchase two parcels of SROA property subject to:
1. Purchase price equal to the appraised value approved by the SROA BOD's.
2. Favorable approval of the exchange by SROA Owners
3. Preparation and approval of a formal "Exchange Agreement ".
• In addition to the consideration paid for the purchase of SROA property
1. Replace the Beaver Drive roadway.
2. Construct and install all traffic mitigation measures required by Deschutes
County.
Page 1 of 2
3. Coordinate roadway projects with SROA
• Agreement is non - transferable without SROA written consent
• Indemnify and hold SROA, its Board of Directors, officers, agents and employees
harmless from any claim, loss or liability arising out of or related to the project
• Provide and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with limits
acceptable to SROA.
ZONING DOCUMENT... Highlights of the new Town Center District attached to the Agreement
as an exhibit (exhibit A) are as follows.
1. Development standards were developed for the purpose of strengthening the
commercial core area as the heart of the community, with the intent of improving its
economic base and enhancing its appearance through high quality design.
2. Uses permitted outright were determined in accordance with SROA's goals.
3. Uses that might be appropriate, but should have further scrutiny before being
permitted require a conditional use permit.
4. 50% of the entire Town Center District must be dedicated to permanent open space.
5. Maximum height permitted for Stand Alone Residential units is 45 feet
6. Maximum height permitted for Mixed Use buildings or structures is 60 feet, except
that one building not exceeding 10% of the maximum square footage of all building
footprints permissible in the TC District can be built to a maximum height of 75 feet.
7. Minimum setbacks from the District perimeter or boundary for buildings and
structures less than 45 feet tall were established at 20 feet except were the TC
District borders a Commercial District, then the setback is 5 feet.
8. Buildings or structures taller than 45 ft have a 50 foot setback from all District
boundaries.
9. Density was limited to 22 units per acre thereby limiting the total number of units for
the entire district to 550 units (assuming 25 total acres) which is less than SROA's
threshold of 600 total units.
10. Use limits were imposed to support SROA's goals as follows:
• Stand Alone Residential condominiums and townhomes (no commercial
component) are only allowed on a maximum of 30% of the total acreage of the
Town Center District.
• Mixed Use buildings or structures can utilize no more than 50% of the first floor
for residential or dwelling purposes
• A Development Plan is required for any new development or structure exceeding
8,000 square feet.
11. If phased development is proposed, a mix of residential and non - residential uses
must be included in each phase.
Page 2 of 2
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Sunriver Owners Association,
an Oregon nonprofit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "SROA" and SilverStar Destinations
LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Developer, ", and together
with SROA, the "Parties ".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, DEVELOPER DESIRES:
To develop that real property located in Sunriver, Oregon commonly known as the
" Sunriver Mall" and certain adjacent real property into commercial and residential units (the
"Project ");
To obtain SROA support for the Project;
To obtain title to and develop two parcels of land owned by SROA (the "SROA
Property");
To resolve issues related to development of the Project in as timely a manner as possible;
and
WHEREAS, SROA DESIRES:
To encourage creation of a vibrant commercial center to the Sunriver community
including services important to visitors and resident and non - resident owners;
To ensure that the commercial center supports community -wide activities that contribute
to sense of community and residential quality of life;
To support development of the commercial center with distinct character and quality of
design that identifies the developed area as the centerpiece of the community;
To support a development that is complementary to the community and compatible with
Sunriver values.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Parties acknowledge that the property exchange transactions contemplated by this
Agreement will require further documentation and approvals, including the preparation and
approval of a formal agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of the proposed
transactions (the "Exchange Agreement "). Nonetheless, the Parties have negotiated and agreed
upon, and hereby agree to be bound by, the terms set forth herein.
Page 1. AGREEMENT
cory
5539.49 SS Agreement.doc
PROPOSED TERMS
1. Land Use
1.1 Developer shall:
(a) File the necessary land use application(s) required to create a new Town
Center District within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Zone that is the same as set forth in
the attached Exhibit A, unless changes are approved by SROA;
(b) File the necessary land use application(s) required to change the Sunriver
Unincorporated Urban Community Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to apply the
Town Center District language to the area shown in the attached Exhibit B;
(c) Submit the Development Plan, which shall include the entire Project, to
SROA for review and continent before formal submittal to Deschutes County;
(d) Consult with SROA on revisions and changes to the zoning language and
Development Plan, whether initiated by Developer or Deschutes County;
(e) Obtain SROA final approval of the Town Center District language and
Development Plan before adoption by Deschutes County;
(f) Bear its own costs related to land use processes.
1.2 SROA shall:
(a) Cooperate with Developer by making its staff available for consultation
with Developer during the land use processes, including the zone creation, zone/map amendment
and Development Plan approval;
(b) Communicate its approval of the Town Center District language,
Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to Deschutes County provided that such language has
been approved by the SROA Board of Directors, which approval may be withheld or denied in
its sole discretion; provided, however, SROA reserves the right to provide additional comments 1
to Deschutes County on the Town Center District language as follows: 1) in response to
comments made or questions raised by other participants in the zoning process (including
without limitation Deschutes County); and/or 2) based on new information about the Project
disclosed to or discovered by SROA after the execution of this Agreement;
(c) Communicate its approval of the Development Plan to Deschutes County
provided that such plan has been approved by the SROA Board of Directors, which approval
may be withheld or denied in its sole discretion;
(d) Cooperate with county requirements for owners of property subject to
zone changes.
Page 2. AGREEMENT
5539.49 SS Agreement.doc
2. Additional Development Standards
2.1 Developer shall conform to project standards contained in this Agreement and the
Exchange Agreement in addition to standards required by the Town Center District;
2.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as altering the Developer's
obligation to: 1) abide by SROA's Design Committee Rules and Procedures; and 2) submit the
Project for review and approval by SROA's Design Committee;
2.3 The Project shall be a mixture of complementary land uses that include, without
limitation, retail, office, commercial service, dining, residential housing and civic uses, and shall
contain no less than 85,000 square feet to accommodate retail, office and commercial service
uses, including the following:
(a) Sufficient space to accommodate non - retail activities (office or
commercial service);
(b) No less than 15,000 ground level square feet to accommodate the sale of
groceries and related food items (not including restaurants or food stands independent of grocery
sales);
2.4 The Project shall include amenities appropriate to Sunriver, including an ice
skating rink and visitor center both at least equal in size to current facilities;
2.5 The Project shall comply with all conditions imposed by Deschutes County and
SROA related to access to the Project, both vehicular and non - vehicular, and mitigation of traffic
impacts related to the Project.
3. Real Property Exchange
3.1 Developer shall:
(a) Comply with all terms and conditions of the Exchange Agreement before
receiving title to the SROA Property;
(b) Provide guarantees, such as bonds or escrow accounts, for performance of
the remaining unfulfilled conditions in the Exchange Agreement if the Project timing requires
transfer of title to the SROA Property prior to all terms and conditions of the Exchange
Agreement being fulfilled;
(c) Bear all costs associated with the process of transferring real property
ownership, except SROA's costs of legal review of Developer- prepared documents;
(d) Bear all costs directly associated with SROA's conducting a vote to obtain
approval for the proposed real property exchange from SROA owners if such vote is conducted
by a special election.
Page 3. AGREEMENT
5539.49 SS Agreemenkdoc
3.2 Prior to entering into the Exchange Agreement, Developer shall conduct an
appraisal of the SROA Property based on its highest and best use as commercial property. The
appraiser shall be MAI certified and mutually acceptable to both parties. The Parties shall
review and approve the results of the above appraisal, which shall be used as the basis of asset
valuation in the Exchange Agreement.
3.3 The Exchange Agreement shall specify compensation to be received by SROA
from Developer for SROA Property. Such compensation shall be a) at least equal to the
appraised value of SROA Property, and b) of a nature that can be accepted by SROA pursuant to
its Consolidated Plan as amended from time to time.
3.4 SROA shall convey title to SROA Property subject to: (1) approval of the
appraised value by SROA's Board; (2) favorable approval of the exchange by SROA owners in
accordance with the terms of the Sunriver Consolidated Plan including, without limitation, the
approval of any amendment to the Consolidated Plan which may be necessary to complete the
transaction contemplated by the Exchange Agreement; (3) Developer compliance with the terms
d conditions of this Agreement; and (4) the negotiation, approval and execution of the
Exchange Agreement. SROA agrees to make reasonable efforts to: 1) convey the intent of the
Project, this Agreement and the Exchange Agreement to its owners, and 2) secure the support
and favorable approval of its owners by vote. However, SROA shall not be obligated to incur
costs or expenses in making such reasonable efforts.
4. Road Project. In addition to the consideration delivered by Developer to SROA for the
SROA Property, the Exchange Agreement shall provide that the Developer shall, at its sole
expense, replace the Beaver Drive roadway in accordance with a construction procedure and
design approved by SROA. Developer shall also construct and install at its sole expense such
traffic mitigation measures as are required by Deschutes County as a condition of approval of the
Project. Developer acknowledges that SROA desires to install or cause to be installed a traffic
circle near the Southeast corner of the Project site. Developer shall use commercially reasonable
efforts to coordinate its Project construction, including the above- referenced road replacement,
with the SROA to maximize the efficiency of both parties' roadway improvement projects. If
Developer's road improvement expense is reduced as a result of the SROA's traffic circle
project, then Developer shall contribute an amount equal to such savings towards the SROA's
traffic circle project.
5. Indemnification. Developer hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Sunriver
Owners Association, its Board of Directors, officers, agents and employees harmless from any
claim, loss, or liability arising out of or related to the Project.
6. Insurance. Prior to commencing work on the Project, Developer shall procure and
thereafter maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of not less than
$1,000,000 for injury to one person, $1,000,000 for injury to two or more persons in one
occurrence, and $300,000 for damage to property, OR a single limit policy of not less than
$1,000,000 covering all claims per occurrence. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising
directly or indirectly out of Developer's activities on or any condition of the Project, including
without limitation, the SROA Property. Such insurance shall protect Developer against the
claims of SROA on account of the obligations assumed by Developer under Section 5, and shall
Page 4. AGREEMENT
5539.49 SS Agreement.doc
name SROA, its Board of Directors, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds.
Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements requiring 10 days written
notice to SROA before any change or cancellation shall be furnished to SROA before Developer
commences work on the Project.
7. Assignment. No assignment or transfer by either party of such party's rights and
obligations hereunder may be made except with the prior written consent of the other party
hereto, which consent may be withheld or denied by either party in such party's sole and
absolute discretion. Provided, however, that an assignment of the Developer's rights and
obligations hereunder to affiliated entities as necessary to accommodate the Developer's
contemplated purchase financing structure (in the opinion of the Developer's legal counsel),
shall be permissible and not a violation of this Section 7 so long as Developer maintains a
controlling interest in such affiliated entities. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the Parties and each of their respective successors and permitted assigns.
8. Attorney Fees. In any arbitration or litigation concerning this Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable expenses of arbitration or litigation, including
reasonable attorney fees at arbitration, at trial and on any appeal or petition for review.
9. . Arbitration. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, any dispute
arising under this Agreement shall be promptly submitted to and heard by the Arbitration Service
of Portland, Inc., or by any other arbitrator mutually agreed upon between the parties to the
dispute. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, the arbitration shall take place in
Deschutes County. The determination of the arbitrator shall be binding upon the parties hereto,
and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
The prevailing party in such arbitration shall be entitled to recover from the other party all
expenses incurred in connection with the arbitration, including attorney's fees.
10. Headings. Headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not affect its
meaning.
11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement and the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than
those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and each term or
provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
12. Modification and Waiver. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed
by both parties. The observance of any term of this Agreement shall not be deemed to have been
waived except by a writing signed by the party to be bound by such waiver.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes any prior agreement or
understanding pertaining thereto.
Page 5. AGREEMENT
5539.49 SS Agreemeetdoc
14. Effect of this Agreement. This Agreement is a binding legal obligation of the parties,
and may be relied on as a basis for a contract by estoppel or be the basis for a claim based on
detrimental reliance or any other theory; however, the obligation of the SROA to complete the
contemplated property exchange shall remain conditioned upon and subject in all respects to the
favorable vote of the SROA members with respect thereto.
15. Agreement, Implementation and Successor Agreements. Upon execution of this
Agreement, the Parties agree to begin negotiation of a definitive Exchange Agreement which,
together with any ancillary agreements which may be necessary, will govern the real property
exchange transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Developer shall provide names and
contact information for Developer, its principals and officers, affiliates, legal counsel and lenders
involved in the Project or its financing. Developer shall provide financial information
demonstrating that Developer has adequate financial backing for the Project in form and
substance reasonably acceptable to SROA. SROA acknowledges that all such information is
confidential and will not be discussed with or disclosed to any third party other than SROA's
legal counsel and financial advisors, except as may be required by law, without the consent of
Developer.
16. No Partnership. Neither party shall be deemed a partner, joint venturer, employer,
employee, or related entity of the other by reason of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement effective as of
the last date written below.
SUNRIVER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Oregon
nonprofit corporation
40‘
SCOTT HARTUNG, PRESID ENT DATE
SILVERSTAR DESTINATIONS, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company
JO ' I. GOODMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR DATE
Page 6. AGREEMENT
5539.49 SS Agreement.doc
EXHIBIT A
18.108.055 Town Center — TC District
A. Purpose & Policies: In an effort to protect and enhance the commercial core area of
Sunriver the County has adopted a special set of development and design standards for the Town
Center District. The development and design standards were developed for the purpose of
strengthening the commercial core area as the heart of the community, improving its economic
base and enhancing its appearance through high- quality design. One purpose of the TC District
is to establish a mechanism for implementation of a Development Plan consistent with this
section. Applicants are required to identify in a Development Plan how their proposed
site/building plan meets the following development standards.
B. Development Standards.
1. Combine a mixture of complimentary land uses that may include retail, offices,
commercial services, residential housing and civic uses to create economic and social
vitality and encourage pedestrian use through mixed use and stand alone residential
buildings.
2. Develop a commercial mixed -use area that is safe, comfortable and attractive to
pedestrians.
3. Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high - density development that
minimizes the amount of land that is needed for development and maintains as much
open space as possible. The goal would be that 50% of the Town Center District
would remain in some form of open space.
4. Provide both formal and informal community gathering places.
5. Provide visitor accommodations and tourism amenities appropriate to Sunriver.
6. Provide design flexibility to anticipate changes in the marketplace.
7. Provide access and public places that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
8. Provide road and pedestrian connections to residential areas.
9. Facilitate development (land use mix, density and design) that supports public transit
where applicable.
10. Develop a distinct character and quality design appropriate to Sunriver that will
identify the Town Center as the centerpiece /focal point of the community.
11. Ensure development consistent with the purposes, policies and standards of this
section, including compliance with all procedures and standards for implementation
of an approved Development Plan.
1
EXHIBIT A
C. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted in
the TC District subject to DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review and DCC 18.108.055.
1. Park, plaza, esplanade.
2. Library.
3. Community center.
4. Visitors center.
5. Grocery store.
6. A building, of any square footage but with the ridge height limitation detailed in DCC
18.105.055 G, housing any or a combination of the following:
a. Retail/rental store, office, civic and service establishment;
b. Art gallery;
c. Dry cleaner/laundry establishment;
d. Restaurant, bakery, delicatessen, pub, cocktail lounge, including entertainment;
e. Health care service including medical and dental clinic, office, pharmacy, and
laboratory;
f. Health & fitness facility;
g. Barber, beauty shop or spa;
h. Child care center, preschool and daycare facility;
i. Bank;
j. Post office;
k. Veterinary clinic (without animal boarding facilities);
1. Crafts in conjunction with retail sales (occurring on premises such as sculpture,
stained glass, pottery, etc.);
m. Residential dwelling units constructed in a Mixed Use, with a Ridge Height not
exceeding 60 feet, except as provided in paragraph G(3), and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (E)(2) of this section;
n. Resort/hotel facility including lodging, housekeeping, concierge and vacation
rentals;
EXHIBIT A
o Meeting room, convention and banquet facility;
p. Property sales, mortgage or rental office;
q. Movie theater.
7. Stand Alone Residential with a ridge height not exceeding 45 feet.
8. Interval ownership and/or time -share unit or the creation thereof.
9. Destination Club and/or Private Residence Club
10. Developed recreational facilities, including but not limited to the following:
a. Indoor and outdoor swimming pools;
b. Ice skating rink;
c. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts;
d. Indoor and outdoor basketball court or other ball field;
e. Physical fitness facilities;
f. Park, playground and picnic and barbeque area;
g. Walkways, bike paths, jogging paths;
h. Bowling alley;
i. Arcade;
j. Movie theater;
k. Other similar recreational facilities consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.108
and Goal 8.
11. Use included in a County approved Development Plan.
D. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to
DCC 18.124 Site Plan Review, DCC 18.128 Conditional Use Permits and this DCC 18.108.055.
1. Public buildings and public utility buildings and structures as they may be appropriate
in the TC District.
2. Bed and breakfast inn.
3. Ambulance service.
4. Fire station.
1
EXHIBIT A
5. Police station.
6. Senior housing/assisted living or active adult development
7. Bus passenger station.
8. Residential facility.
9. Live/work townhome.
E. Use Limits.
1. Stand Alone Residential is allowed on a maximum of 30% of the total acreage of the
TC District, subject to the requirements of this DCC 18.108.055.
2. Mixed Use developed in the TC District shall be subject to the following
requirements:
a. For each Mixed Use building or structure in the TC District, no more than 50% of
the ground floor square footage (with said ground floor square footage not
including parking or storage areas) shall contain or be used for residential or
dwelling purposes.
b. There will be no limit on the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit;
c. There will be no limit on the size of a dwelling unit.
d. To the extent included in the use permitted by DCC 18.108.055(G)(3),
resort/hotel facility lodging shall not be considered a "residential or dwelling
purpose."
3. Any new development or structure exceeding 8,000 gross square footage is not
permitted unless such development is approved by Deschutes County as part of a
Development Plan.
F. Definitions. In addition to the provisions of DCC 18.04, the following definitions apply
in the TC District. To the extent the definitions in this DCC 18.108.055 conflict with DCC
18.04, the definitions of DCC 18.108.055 shall apply.
1. Health care service: A business providing the diagnosis, treatment and care of physical
and/or mental disease, injury and/or disability, but not including a nursing home as
defined in DCC 18.04.
2. Barber/Beauty Shop: A full service beauty salon or barber which would include
haircuts, permanents, washes, nails, etc., and the retail sales of incidental beauty
supplies typical of any beauty salon and the sale of associated food and beverages for
the use of the clientele.
EXHIBIT A
3. Spa: A facility which promotes wellness and. provides such services as beauty
treatments, massages, wraps, exercise, etc., and the retail sales of incidental beauty
supplies, accessories, clothing and associated food and beverages for the use of the
clientele.
4. Multi- Family Residential Dwelling: In addition to the definition provided by DCC
18.04, "dwelling, multi- family", includes condominiums and townhomes but does not
include apartments.
5. Mixed Use: In this DCC 18.108.055, "mixed use" shall mean residential dwellings
contained within a single structure that combines commercial or retail use with
residential or lodging/tourism based uses. A structure composed solely of residential
dwellings and uses supportive of that residential use (such as a management office or
developed recreational use) shall not be considered "mixed use."
6. Stand Alone Residential: In this DCC 18 .108.055, "stand alone residential" shall mean
any single structure that contains multi- family residential dwelling (as that term is
defined in this definitional section) and uses supportive of that residential use. "Stand
alone residential" does not include commercial or retail uses, except "live/work"
dwellings permitted by this DCC 18.108.055.
7. Ridge Height The ridge height shall be measured from the existing and undisturbed
grade elevation at the midpoint (center) of the building footprint. Exception: In a
Mixed Use building where parking is provided beneath the building the definition set
forth in DCC 18.04 `Height of Building" shall apply in determining the ridge height.
8. Live/work Townhome: A residential, fee simple townhome unit in which a business
may be operated. The commercial or office portion of the townhome shall be limited
to the ground floor and may not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the entire
building, excluding the garage. Any activity that produces objectionable impacts,
including but not limited to objectionable impacts due to noise, glare, odor, smoke,
dust, vibration, or traffic shall not be permitted.
9. Open Space: All areas within the TC District that are not covered by buildings or
structures including any deck that is more than 12 inches above finished grade and all
areas within any screened enclosure. Eaves and any driveway, road, walkway, deck,
patio, plaza, park or porch that is 12 inches or less above finished grade (except with
affixed improvements that exceed 12 inches), parking areas on or below finished grade,
and not more than one above -grade parking structure that does not exceed 12 feet above
finished grade, is open space.
10. Destination Club or Private Club: A whole or fractionally -owned residential facility or
buildings that feature or contain exclusive facilities, membership and/or access and use
rights of on -site or off -site amenities.
5
EXHIBIT A
G. Ridge Height Regulations.
1. Except as provided herein, no Stand Alone Residential shall be hereafter erected,
enlarged or structurally altered to exceed 45 feet in Ridge Height.
2. Except as provided herein, no Mixed Use shall be hereafter erected, enlarged or
structurally altered to exceed 60 feet in Ridge Height.
3. One building or structure that contains Mixed Use shall be permitted in the TC
District with a maximum Ridge Height not to exceed 75 feet so long as the building
footprint of that portion of said building that exceeds 75 feet (not including any
structured parking areas) is not greater than 10 percent of the maximum square
footage of all building footprints permissible in the TC District.
4. Projections and architectural elements such as chimneys, spires, clock towers,
skylights, atriums, flag poles, mechanical equipment and screens and other similar
items that do not add habitable interior floor area may be allowed to exceed the height
limit by a maximum of 10 feet.
H. Lot Requirements. The following lot requirements shall be observed.
1. Lot area: no requirements.
2. Lot width: no requirements.
3. Lot depth: no requirements.
4. Front yard: the front yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
5. Side yard: no requirements.
6. Rear yard: no requirements.
District Setback.
1. All development (including structures, sight - obstructing fences over three feet in -
height and changes to the natural topography of land, but excluding the uses
described in this DCC 18.108.055(1)) shall be set back from all Town Center District
boundaries a minimum of 20 feet, except where the Town Center District borders a
Commercial District, then the setback will be 5 feet. This setback shall provide
sufficient space for pedestrian pathways, street trees, planters, driveways,
landscaping, outdoor seating and in general improve the pedestrian environment and
streetscape along all perimeter roads and TC District boundaries. The area of this 20
foot setback may be counted towards any open space requirement.
2. Any portion of a building or structure with a Ridge Height that is more than 45 feet
(max. 75 feet) shall have a minimum setback from the District boundary of 50 feet.
6
EXHIBIT A
J. Residential Density. The overall residential density of the Town Center District shall not
exceed 22 dwelling units per gross acre of the Town Center District.
K. TC District Design Review Standards.
1. Purpose and Applicability. The Town Center design review standards are intended to
provide detailed, human scale design, while affording flexibility to use a variety of
architectural building styles appropriate to Sunriver.
2. Standards. The following standards shall be met. A design feature used to comply
with one standard may be used to comply with another standard.
a. Large -scale buildings shall incorporate changes in direction (articulation) and
divide large masses into varying heights and sizes.
b. Buildings with exterior walls greater than 50 feet in horizontal length shall be
constructed using a combination of architectural features, a variety of building
materials and landscaping near the walls.
c. On site landscaping is required and shall abut the walls so that the vegetation
combined with the architectural features significantly reduce the visual impact of
the building mass as viewed from the street. Materials and design should be
characteristic of the Central Oregon area.
d. The predominant building materials should be materials that are characteristic of
Central Oregon such as wood, native stone and tinted/textured concrete masonry
units and/or glass products.
e. Roofs should be designed to reduce the apparent exterior mass of a building, add
visual interest and be appropriate to the architectural style of the building.
Variations within one architectural style and variations in heights are highly
encouraged.
f. Clearly defined highly visible customer entrances using features such as canopies,
porticos, arcades, arches, wing walls and/or integral planters are required.
g.
Community amenities such as patio /seating areas, water - features, art work or
sculpture, clock towers, pedestrian plazas with park benches or other features
located in areas accessible to the public are encouraged and may be calculated as
part of the landscaping requirement.
h. Exterior lighting shall comply with the provisions of Deschutes County's lighting
ordinance and SROA's adopted Design Standards.
i. All development and improvements within the Town Center District shall be
subject to the SROA design review and approval process, and all Town Center
District design review standards.
7
EXHIBIT A
L. Application and approval process.
1. The approval of an application for development of more than 8,000 gross square
footage within a Town Center District shall consist of two steps.
a. Development Plan. The applicant shall submit a Development Plan that addresses
all requirements established in 18.108,055. The Development Plan will be
reviewed and approved upon a finding that it is consistent with the Development
and Design Standards and the Use and Development Restrictions contained in
DCC 18.108.055. As additional review criterion for approval of a Development
Plan, the Development Plan shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total
acreage dedicated to permanent open space.
b. Site Plan Review. Each element or development phase of the Town Center
District must receive approval through the required site plan review (DCC
18.124) and applicable supplementary provisions (DCC 18.116). In addition to
findings satisfying the site plan criteria, findings shall be made that the specific
development proposal complies with the standards and criteria of DCC
18.108.055 and the Development Plan.
2. An Applicant may submit a Development Plan consistent with the provisions of
DCC, Title 17, including phased development. If the Applicant is proposing phased
development, Applicant shall provide sufficient information regarding the overall
Development Plan and phasing sequence when submitting its Development Plan for
approval. If phased development is proposed, as additional site plan approval review
criteria, a finding shall be made that each phase includes a mix of residential and non-
residential uses and that the specific element or phase being reviewed is consistent
overall with a previously approved Development Plan.
0
Note:
Both SilverStar Destinations and SROA anticipate
that there will be many changes made to this
initial Town Center District zoning language
before the county and SROA review and approval
processes are complete.
C1TfES l OREGON CITY Qi�60014,_claa(b,, �2ty
Developer shows city
The Rivers mall project
Shopping I Developer
Fred Bruning envisions
a complex twice the size
of his Bridgeport Village
By COLIN MINER
SPECIAL TO THE OREGONIAN
A $250 million project mixing
shopping, entertainment, office
space, a hotel and a nod to Ore-
gon history.
That's what Fred Bruning sees
when he looks at 60 acres near
the Home Depot in Oregon City
and Metro's south transfer gar-
bage and recycling station.
Bruning, the CEO of Center -
Cal Properties, the developer be-
hind Bridgeport Village in Tuala-
tin and other area properties,
unveiled his vision, called The
Rivers, for the site this month at
a joint working session of Ore-
gon City's Urban Renewal and
Planning commissions.
"Most cities have some sort of
monument marking the > en-
trance to the city, something
proclaiming, `This is the city,'
Bruning said before the meeting.
"Oregon City currently has a
dump. I want to change that"
Bruning said the moment he
became familiar with the site, he
became entranced with its po-
tential
"This is the historic end of the
Oregon Trail," he said. "This is
where the wagons came to a halt
and people celebrated their new
life. What we want to build is
something that will honor that
tradition."
In preparing to build on the
site, the former location of Ross -
man Landfill, Bruning said, Cen-
terCal spent more than two
years doing due diligence, exam-
ining everything from the envi-
ronmental issues associated
with building on a dump to im-
proving the Oregon 213 inter-
change to commissioning a
study to determine area needs.
As part of that study, Center -
Cal officials held more than half
a dozen group meetings and .
canvassed area businesses and
residents one-on -one.
"It will be a mix of Bridgeport
Village and Cascade Village at
the Airport and twice as big as
Bridgeport," Bruning said. He
proposes a complex of more
than 200,000 square feet.
Though no leases can be
signed until after a development
deal is in place, something Cen-
terCal and the city hope will
happen this summer, Bruning
said more than a dozen major
retailers — including Target,
Best Buy, Golf Smith, H&M —
have expressed an interest in the
project
LL Bean, the Maine -based
retailer, is talking about opening
its first store west of Chicago in a
two -story site in the develop-
ment, Bruning said. Hyatt is
studying the feasibility of open-
ing an approximately 120 -room
hotel there, and CenterCal is
tailing with Regal Cinema about
opening an 18- screen theater
with IMAX, similar to what is at
Bridgeport Village.
Though many similar devel-
opments are laid out along a grid
pattern, The Rivers is meant to
reflect the winding nature of the
Oregon Trail "where surprises
often lay around each turn,"
Bruning said. The pathways
would wind through four courts:
Explorers Grove, Celebration
Circle, Vinters' Square and Lega-
cy Court.
* -�
TOM SHERRILL/GENESIS STWIOS
Design concepts for The Rivers in Oregon City pay tribute to the
historic nature of the. site. The layout reflects the winding of the
Oregon Trail, and landscaping would include artwork by local
artisans and statues of explorers.
Throughout the project would
be artwork and exhibits created
by local artisans emphasizing
the area's history, including stat-
ues of explorers and Native
American figures.
"We're also working with a lo-
cal artist to illustrate stories that
we found at the museum of early
settlers," Bruning said. "This is a
historic site and we want to
make sure that whatever we
build connects to that history."
CenterCal and city officials
project The Rivers will create
more than 1,600 permanent jobs
for the area and contribute ap-
proximately $2 million in annual
property taxes.
Before any of it can happen,
however, CenterCal and Oregon
City need to overcome a few
obstades, including getting ap-
proval from Oregon's transpor-
tation department to improve
Oregon 213 and environmental
clearances to build on the land-
fill.
Fixing the 213 interchange is
the major hurdle, according to
City Manager Lany Patterson,
adding that the approximately
$22 million needed for the proj-
ect will be fronted by CenterCal.
"Until the interchange is feed,
nothing can happen."
A traffic study done for Cen-
terCal found that the highway
operates at approximately 95
percent of capacity and that it
will top 100 percent in a couple
of years. "Fixing the interchange
will bring capacity down to
about 70 percent," Patterson
said, "and means that new de-
velopments will Rely be ably, to
proceed for more than a dec-
ade."
Including the cost of the Ore-
gon 213 fix, CenterCal and Ore-
gon City officials have identified
nearly $70 million in extra costs
associated with the project, in-
cluding $20 million to install pil-
ings and approximately $7 :mil-
lion for a methane filter.
CenterCal officials also plan
approximately $5 million in
street improvements. They hope
to break ground this fall Ind
open in 2010.
"If you were to put together a
list of everything you would
want in a project," Patterson
said, "thus project has it"
•
ColinMiner. cominer@maccan
0
Silverstar Comparable Density Scenario:
% of Unit Type in Mix 5% 10%
Number of Units 19 37
Net Sq Ft Floor 9,500 27,750
Total Max Occupants 38 148
Parking Requirements 19 37
Density on 17 Acres
Silverstar Lower Pillows Scenario:
% of Unit. Type in Mix 30%
Number of Units 170
Net Sq Ft Floor 85,000
Total Max Occupants 340
Parking Requirements 170
Density on 17 Acres
SR Adjust to get Maximum Pillows:
%o of Unit Type in Mix 0% 83%
Number of Units 0 530
Net Sq Ft Floor - 397,500
Total Max Occupants 0 2120
Parking Requirements 0 530
Density on 17 Acres
SR Adjust to get Maximum Units and Parking:
% of Unit Type in Mix 100% 0% 0%
Number of Units 910 0 0
Net Sq Ft Floor 455,000
Total Max Occupants 1820 0 0
Parking Requirements 910 0 0
Density on 17 Acres
35%
198
148,500
792
198
15% 25% 20% 20% 2% 2% 100 %.
56 93 75 75 9 9 373
50,400 116,250 105,000 131,250 18,000 21,600 479,750 55,950
336 558 600 600 72 90 2,442
56 93 112.5 112.5 18 18 466 224 5.5 Acres of Parking
FAR= 0.90 21.9 U/ac 1,286 Ave Unit SF
0%
0
0
35% 0%
198 0
247,500
1188 0
198 0
17% 0%
111
99,900
666 0
111 0
Silverstar Original 22
% of Unit Type in Mix
Number of Units
Net Sq Ft Floor
Total Max Occupants
Parking Requirements
Density on 26.5 Acres
U /Ac on 26.5 Acres:
17% 26%
100 150
50,000 112,500
200 600
100 150
0%
0
0
0
0% 0 %. 0% 100%
0 0 0 566
481,000 84,900
0 0 0 2,320
0 0 0 566 340 7.3 Acres of Parking
FAR= 0.96 33.3 U/ac 850 Ave Unit SF
0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
641
- - 497,400 96,150
0 0 0 0 2,786
0 0 0 0 641 384.6 8.2 Acres of Parking
FAR= 1.00 37.7 U/ac 776 Ave Unit SF
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
17% 26% 0% 14%
100 150 0 83
90,000 187,500 145,250
600 900 0 664
100 150 0 124.5
0%
0% 100%
910
0 0
0 0
FAR= 1.00
- 455,000 136,500
1,820
910 546 11.7 Acres of Parking
53.5 U/ac 500 Ave Unit SF
0% 0% 100%
0 0 583
- 585,250 35,00C
0 0 2,964
0 0 625 340 7.7 Acres of Parking
FAR= 0.73 22.0 U /ac 1,004 Ave Unit SF
Silverstar Original 26.5 Acres with Planning Commission Limits:
% of Unit Type in Mix 16% 26% 18% 26% 0% 14% 0% 0% 100%
Number of Units 80 130 90 130 0 70 0 0 500
Net Sq Ft Floor 40,000 97,500 81,000 162,500 122,500 - - 503,500 120,000
Total Max Occupants 160 520 540 780 0 560 0 0 2,560
Parking Requirements 80 130 90 130 0 105 0 0 535 480 8.2 Acres of Parking
Density on 26.5 Acres FAR= 0.68 18.9 U /ac 1,007 Ave Unit SF
Silverstar Current 15.5 acres at Planning Comission FAR:
% of Unit Type in Mix 14% 28% 18% 28% 0% 12% 0% 0% 100%
Number of Units 40 80 50 80 34 284
Net Sq Ft Floor 20,000 60,000 45,000 100,000 - 59,500 284,500 85,000
Total Max Occupants 80 320 300 480 0 272 0 0 1,452
Parking Requirements 40 80 50 80 0 51 0 0 301 340 5.2 Acres of Parking
Density on 15.5 Acres FAR= 0.68 18.3 U /ac 1,002 Ave Unit SF
Use
FAR 1.0 in
Acres Floor Area FAR Relation
Sunriver UUC MR: 10 120,000 0.28 3.6
VILLAGE AT SUNRIVER
541.593.87041 57100 Beaver Drivel village®villageatsunriver.com
Memorandum
To: Terri Payne Hansen (Deschutes County Planning), SROA Board of Directors, Citizens for
Sunriver
Cc:
From: Mark Smuland •
Date: 6/17/08
Topic: Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment Changes
As noted during the 6/4/08 Deschutes County Commission hearing on the Sunriver Town Center District,
testimony at the 6/25/08 hearing will only be allowed on proposed changes to the text amendment
since the 1/10/08 planning commission approval of the text amendment. As such, we have prepared
this document to help focus everyone's attention on what has changed since that time and the reasons
for the proposed changes.
Please note that the code sections noted below were based upon the latest draft of text available at the
time. Minor refinements are currently being completed so it is possible that some code designations
may not match exactly.
BACKGROUND
Since the SROA land sale was narrowly defeated in mid - February 2008, SilverStar Destinations (SSD), the
Deschutes County Planning staff and the SROA have been working together to ensure that the details of
the proposed Sunriver Town Center text amendment will continue to meet the goals for which it was
originally drafted. There are a number of issues that have been addressed in this latest revision
Including:
• Implications caused by the zoning of adjacent parcels that were originally envisioned to be
rezoned as Town Center.
• Impacts caused by the potential retention of the existing Beaver Drive In Its current location.
• Inclusion of changes made by Deschutes County legal staff.
• Structuring the zone language to contemplate Its potential application to other areas of the
county.
• Conforming the zone language to apply to what could be a smaller project site than was
envisioned in the original SROA and SSD approved language.
Since the details of county code can be confusing, we are providing the following summary to help
explain the reasoning for and results of the proposed changes.
CHAPTER 18.04 TITLE. PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
The following changes are proposed:
Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment 6/17/08
1. Townhome: Non - mixed -use residential development can take many forms: Single- family
residences, multi - family (attached and stacked residences) and townhomes (single - family
residences that share a common side wall). Each type of residence is very different and needs
to be treated differently in county code. ' Townhome" was not defined in county code so a
definition is proposed to address this issue.
2. Below Grade Parking Garage: Below grade parking is excluded from Floor Area Ratio
calculations which are being proposed to control density. This definition is based upon the
current definition of how a "basement" is measured.
3. Hotel /motel unit: This definition was refined to allow hotel units that are owned by private
owners and have deed restrictions which Is a current trend in the hotel industry. It also allows
hotel units to be "suites" of multiple rooms.
4. Live /work residence: This is an allowed use in the TC district but a definition did not exist.
5. Mixed -Use Structure: This definition did not exist prior to this application.
CHAPTER 18.108 URBAN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY ZONE - SUNRIVER
18.108.020 (B) Solar Setbacks
Minor changes were requested by county legal counsel. All land outside the TC district and residential
lands that may be surrounded by the TC district (Abbott House) are still protected by this section of
code.
18.108.055 Town Center — TC District
(A) Uses Permitted Outright
Additional uses were added at the request of county counsel. Senior Housing was added at the
request of the community.
(D) Form of Ownership /List of Uses
Changes were requested by county counsel.
(E) Use Limits
Refinements have been made at the request of county counsel, the SROA and SSD. The primary goal
is to ensure that ground floor uses that face public gathering *places are activated with commercial
uses while areas that do not face these areas can be used for residential purposes to ensure project
viability. Uses that were allowed include: Recreational (fitness center, etc.),
Community /Governmental (Post Office, etc.) and Hotels (lobbies, etc., not hotel rooms). Residential
units and hotel rooms are allowed to face private plazas such as private pool decks.
(F) Building Height Regulations
No distinction was previously made in the proposed text between townhomes (single - family
attached residences) and multi- family (stacked residences). These were previously, and incorrectly,
lumped together into one group with a 45' height limit. These have now been separated into two
categories: Townhomes with a lower 4.0' height limit and multi - family residences with a slightly
higher height of 50'.
Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment 6/17/08
(G)Lot Requirements
Changes were made at the request of Deschutes County counsel.
(H) District Setback
When the TC District text was originally crafted, it was anticipated that all land within the area
bordered by Abbott Drive, the original Beaver Drive right of way and the Fremont Crossing
Townhomes to the north would become the Town Center (TC) District. Since the SROA land sale did
not pass in February, we had to ensure that any or all lands in this area could be rezoned as Town
Center and that others might not. These lands that could become rezoned as Town Center are now
bordered by a variety of differently zoned lands including Commercial, Single Family Residential,
Multi - Family and Community General: All of these adjacent land zones needs to be addressed by
the appropriate setbacks. In the future, some lands could be rezoned as "open space" (Community
Limited). While lands in this area are not currently zoned Community Limited, this adjacency may
also apply so it was addressed accordingly. The revised setbacks were written to recreate the
original of the original setbacks on this smaller, but more complex site.
(I) Residential Density
A Floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 is being requested in lieu of the originally proposed definition of 22
units of residential density per acre. The ratio is defined as all developed area divided by the area of
the site. The FAR includes all above grade uses including residential, commercial and parking
structures. Since residential units can vary dramatically in size, FAR more completely regulates the
mass of density while allowing flexibility to the developer to develop the size and number of
residential units that the market desires without dramatically changing the overall area that the
developer can sell. As part of this change, previously complex language that assigned .5 density
units to hotel rooms and lock -off units Is no longer required.
(K) Conceptual Site Plan
Most changes in this section were made at the request of Deschutes County counsel to make the
text more manageable. The intent of the original code is still intact. Additional text was added to
the requirements for a TIA that will cover all allowed uses that are eventually proposed on a
Conceptual Site Plan. Additional text was added to clarify the process on how to determine whether
a modification to a Conceptual Site Plan is a modification or whether it would require the
submission of a new site plan.
(L) Application and Approval Process
Most changes in this section were made at the request of Deschutes County counsel to make the
text more manageable. The intent of the original code Is still Intact. Additional text was added to
clarify how bulk FAR based density will be analyzed in a transportation impact study (TIA). A cap of
trips will be made at the time of a CSP submission. At the time of a site plan application that shows
what type and amount of commercial space and residential units will be built, the developer will
need to ensure that the limits of the original TIA are not exceeded.
One element that did change was how "landscaping" would be treated in the TC District. Deschutes
County -typically manages the more rural, unincorporated areas of the county that are subject to
smaller scale development than the Sunriver commercial core. As such, the County's definition of
landscaping is primarily directed to be areas that are 'maintained by a lawnmower'. In the case of
the Sunriver Town Center zone, the community Is looking for a community gathering place. As such,
Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment 6/17/08
the public areas at the center of this zone are envisioned to be a combination of plantings, plazas
and amenities to support community activities. These plaza areas that combine plantings,
hardscape and amenities are proposed to count towards the 15% county landscape requirement.
Only land Included in a Conceptual Site Plan application (owned by or agreed to by an adjacent land
owner can be included in this calculation) can apply to the landscaping requirement.
Platting within the TC District will be unique as land outside of individual buildings will be deeded to
a Master Association. Thus, landscaping will be addressed over the range of all lots and not on a lot
by lot basis. Language was added, at the request of County staff, to discuss how district -wide
requirements are to be met as development progresses. In addition, each site plan will need to
meet these requirements. These requirements can be met with a combination of new development
and existing conditions within the land covered by a Conceptual Site Plan.
CHAPTER 18.116 SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
18.116.036 Special Parking Provisions for the Sunriver Town Center (TC) District
A new section for parking requirements in the TC District was created at the request of Deschutes
County staff.
(A) Required Motor Vehicle Parking
As noted in the building height section above, townhomes and multi - family residences should be
treated differently. In the original text, multi - family residences were envisioned as townhomes or
"walk -up" stacked residences in buildings that would not have common Interior corridors, elevator
service and structured parking. Multi- family buildings with condominium residences that had these
common features were described as mixed -use buildings.
However, there are opportunities for multi- family buildings that have common features to be
located away from the commercial core. These residences will function like the mixed -use
residences with the only difference being that the buildings will not have commercial space on the
first floor and thus are not technically "mixed -use ". Thus, we are proposing the same parking
standards for this building type as the mixed -use building type. One example would be Senior
Housing where stairs are not desirable but common features such as a lounge and elevator service
are.
Stacked multi - family residences without these common features are far Tess expensive to build than
their counterparts. Thus, these residences are often larger than residences with common features
since they can be sold to families or those that anticipate more guests. Hence, these residences
have the higher parking standards as noted in the parking table.
Multi - family residences without common features are always wood framed which typically limits
their development to buildings of (8) residential units or less. As we have all seen over the past few
months, it is often difficult to describe a seemingly simple topic such as this in a manner that works
in a zoning code. Hence, we have used the limit on the number of residences in a particular building
as the determining factor in delineating parking requirements for these two residential building
types.
Other Changes in Section 18.116.036
Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment 6/17/08
The remaining changes in this section are either clerical or seek to clarify details of bicycle parking
and Transportation Demand Management policies. The details of an actual plan will be submitted
with future development applications.
CHAPTER 18.124 SITE PLAN REVIEW
18.124.070 (A)(3) Required Minimum Standards, Shared Areas
In order to more closely comply with current Deschutes County code, SSD has voluntarily added the
requirement of a minimum of (100) sf of outdoor recreation space per multi- family residence. As
previously noted above, platting within the TC District will be unique as land outside of individual
buildings will be master planned to serve the entire community and deeded to a Master Association.
Thus, shared areas will be reviewed over the range of all lots in the district and not on a lot by lot basis.
At the request of the county, a recreation area for children must be included in the district.
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CHAPTER 23.40.025 URBAN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY -
SUNRIVEIZ
These are changes intended to clarify where the Sunriver Town Center zone can be applied. These
changes were made at the request of the Sunriver Owners Association.
VILLAGE AT SUNRIVER
541.593.8704 1 57100 Beaver Drivel village @villageatsunriver.com
Memorandum
To: Terri Hansen Payne, Will Groves, Peter Russell (Deschutes County Planning)
Cc: Catherine Morrow, Laurie Craghead, Liz Fancher
From: Mark Smuland
Date: 5/20/08
Topic: Sunriver Town Center, Floor Area Ratio Request
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past 18 months, SilverStar Destinations, the Sunriver Owner's Association and Deschutes
County have worked together to create the language for the Sunriver Town Center District zone within
the Deschutes County Code. The code is envisioned to ultimately be applied to the Sunriver commercial
core to allow its redevelopment Into a mixed -use Town Center that will serve as the commercial and
social center of the Sunriver Community and south Deschutes County.
In creating the new code, all parties have worked together to make the code as simple as possible by
using as many of the concepts currently used in the Deschutes County Code as possible. As such, the
code was originally written to regulate residential density by the method currently used in Deschutes
County, which is by the number of residential density units per acre. Since most of the areas governed
by the Deschutes County Code are more rural, low density and of a single use, this measuring system
has typically worked fine. The Sunriver Town Center District is the first area in Deschutes County that is
envisioned to fully address the complex conditions of a higher density, mixed -use development.•
In the past few weeks, the risks and limitations of regulating residential density by a fixed number of
residential density units (22 units per acre) has fully been realized by the various parties, and identified
as a significant risk to the ultimate viability of the redevelopment. The fundamental flaw of the current
density measuring system is that it does not account for the variable size of a residence. Residential
density is limited, and the code views a 500 square foot studio as equivalent to a 2,500 sq ft, 4- bedroom
residence.
A mixed -use Town Center requires the successful sale of residential units to be viable. This is required
for both financial reasons, as well as to create a higher base of on -site residents to drive the commercial
businesses that bring life to the Village. Successfully selling the residential component means
developing residential product that is accepted by and responsive to the demands of residential buyers
over a multi -year period. As such, it is imperative that the code that governs this type of project has a
degree of flexibility for the developer in choosing what to develop, while giving the community certain
assurances as to how much will be developed, and that any impacts will be properly addressed. In many
areas of the country, the concept that has been created to accomplish this balance of flexibility and
assurances is a Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
2. WHAT IS A FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)?
Quite simply, a FAR is a density measuring system that regulates the total square footage of
development on a site, no matter what the use. All above -grade uses, including commercial and
residential uses, are combined and divided by the square footage of the project site. For example, a
40,000 square feet site with a FAR of 1.0 would allow an above - ground gross development area of
1
Sunriver Town Center FAR 5/20/08
40,000 square feet. This developable area could include 40,000 square feet of space on 1 floor covering
all of the site, or it could Include a two -story building of 20,000 square feet per floor. See attached
Exhibit A (Floor Area Ratio Defined) for a graphic representation. See Exhibit B for the proposed text for
the Deschutes County Code.
3. WHY IS FAR APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUNRIVER TOWN CENTER ZONING?
There are many reasons why the use of a Floor Area Ratio is appropriate for the Sunriver Town Center
including the following:
a. Simplicity: All development uses and their corresponding areas are accounted for in one control
mechanism. In the case of the specific code that has been proposed, it will eliminate the need
for partial units of density for hotel rooms and lock -off units which are more difficult for the
county to administer.
b. Comprehensive: An FAR, unlike a fixed number of residences per acre, gives an absolute cap on
the number of square feet of development that can be built on a site. This will give a more
accurate measure of the overall impacts Including lot coverage and the mass of a development.
c. Product Flexibility: An FAR allows the developer to respond to changes in consumer
preferences over time to ensure the ability to meet buyer preferences while not negatively
impacting the feasibility of the project. An analogy would be that the size of the pie remains the
same. The ple can just be cut Into more (or less) pieces as is needed.
d. Site Flexibility: Since the amount of developable area under an FAR is proportionally related to
the size of the site, additional land can be added to the Sunriver Town Center District in the
future and the allowed amount of density would increase proportionally.
e. Proven Concept: The FAR concept has been adopted by many planning departments
throughout the country and has a long track record of successful use.
f. Accuracy: As is stated in the code for the city of Breckenridge, CO: "the town has determined
that the impacts of a development are more closely related to the total square footage of the
project than the number of units ". This will be the case in Sunriver as well.
g. Complementary: The FAR can easily be combined with other development control tools such as
height limits, parking ratios, private design guidelines and private development agreements to
create customized solutions for any specific project.
4. WHY SHOULD AN FAR OF 1.0 BE SUPPORTED FOR SUNRIVER?
a. Lower Than Other Comparable Communities: FARs have been calculated or pulled from the
codes of other comparable communities and the 1.0 ratio recommended for Sunriver is equal to
or lower than these communities Including the following:
• Village at Mammoth: 1.24 FAR
• River Run at Keystone: 1.09 FAR
• Village at Squaw Valley: 1.11 FAR
• Cohasset, MA: 1.3 FAR
• Fairview, OR: 1.0 FAR
• Snowmass, CO: 1.0 FAR
b. Allows Diversity of Product Types: Many desired residential product types such as Senior and
or Affordable Housing do not require large size residential units. if a developer is capped by a
2
Sunriver Town Center FAR 5/20/08
fixed number of residential units, there is a disincentive to provide smaller residences as they
will consume precious density and negatively impact a project's feasibility. FARs allow a
developer to provide diversity within their project to meet the needs of the community.
c. Overall Occupants Do Not Increase As A Residential Product Mix Changes: Exhibit D
(Maximum Occupant Load for 17 acre site at FAR of 1.0) shows how the total number of
"pillows" (occupant sleeping capacity) would change under four different residential mix
scenarios. The analysis is based upon an assumed 480,000 net sellable square feet (ssf) of
residential space that would be available under a FAR of 1.0 on a 17 acre site. See Option #1 on
Exhibit C (FAR 1.0 vs 22 Residences per Acre Density Analysis) to see how this number was
generated. It is also assumed that 2 people can occupy each bedroom, living room (sofa bed)
and loft.
In each residential product mix (average residence sizes of approximately 1,500, 1,250, 1,000
and 850 ssf), the maximum number of occupants varies by only 5% under all scenarios. What is
enlightening to understand is that the lowest maximum nu_mber of occupants is actually
generated by the mix with the highest number of residential units. Thus, the flexibility of
residential unit sizes and counts allowed under FAR will NOT affect the number of occupants in
the Town Center and a residential cap is not required.
d. Overall Buildable Density Does Not Increase Under FAR: Exhibit C (FAR 1.0 vs 22
Residents /Acre Density Analysis) shows how the amount of residential area (ssf) can vary under
a fixed residential unit cap if residence size and the overall project site size varies. In this
analysis, 3 potential site sizes are analyzed, 17 acres (currently owned by SilverStar), 21 acres
and 26.5 acres (maximum size of the district as described in the proposed Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Amendment). Under each site size, the total amount of residential area
(ssf) generated from 3 average residence sizes (1,500, 1,285 and 1,000 ssf) at 22 residences per
acre is compared to what is allowed under an FAR density control system.
Under each site scenario, an average residential unit size of approximately 1,290 ssf at 22
residential units per acre generates the equivalent residential density as an FAR. While the
1,290 average residence size is feasible, it is not in the best interest of any project stakeholder if
the market ultimately wants smaller residences. A density cap of 22 density units /acre that
creates an incentive for a developer to build larger residences will ultimately hurt the project. In
light of the fact that residence size does not generate more occupants and impacts on the
community as shown in item "c" above, the FAR is the proper density control mechanism for the
proposed Sunriver Town Center zone.
5. SUNR1VER RESIDENT CONCERNS /COMPLEMENTARY CONTROL MECHANISMS
Over the course of this text amendment process, SilverStar Destinations, SROA and /or Deschutes County
have held numerous community meetings, listened to public testimony and reached out to Sunriver
owners and others to gauge acceptance the zone language and redevelopment proposal, and to respond
to their issues and concern. Many of the more common concerns expressed are either addressed
directly by the proposed FAR text or will be addressed by complementary control mechanisms that are
already in the proposed code language or will be addressed by a private development agreement.
These concerns and their control mechanisms are as follows:
a. Height Restriction: This is already addressed in the proposed code language.
3
Sunriver Town Center FAR 5/20/08
b. Parking: This is already addressed in the proposed code language.
c. Site Coverage: This is already addressed In the proposed code language.
d. Design Details: These will be addressed in future entitlement applications that are required in
the current code language.
e. Residential Mlx: While the proposed FAR text provides flexibility, the exact mix is best left up to
market forces and not be dictated by private individuals or entities.
f. Amount of Commercial Space: A minimum amount of new commercial space (85,000 sf) is
required in a private agreement between the SROA and SilverStar. Minimum commercial space
is also tied to development of residential units in the proposed code language.
Design Quality: The Town Center will be subject to the current Sunriver design guidelines.
Specific Town Center guidelines have already been proposed by SilverStar Destinations.
h. Traffic Control and Emergency Egress: These are already addressed in our Transportation
Impact Analysis and a more localized transportation analysis will be required during the
Conceptual Site Plan process as outlined in the current code text.
i. Amenity Usage: In order to sell Town Center residences, a private amenity package Is planned
within the Town Center. Exact details of market based initiatives such as this are best left to
private agreements. In addition, the SROA currently has the lowest HOA dues of any resort
community in the region. An amenity study is currently being undertaken by the SROA to
analyze community needs and to plan for expanded facilities in the future.
g.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND REQUESTED ACTION
Mixed -use town centers and extremely complex projects and, according to Dave Leland of Leland
Consulting Group, approximately 60% of these projects either fail or under - perform financially. Thus,
while the Sunriver Town Center has the opportunity'to provide a wide array of financial and community
benefits to Deschutes County and Sunriver, it is imperative that we create code language that gives a
subsequent project the highest likelihood of success.
The commercial spaces, parking and amenities that make up a Town Center are extremely expensive
and they can only be pald for through the sale of residential units. The residential units also provide the
additional people in the Town Center that feed the commercial tenants, provide the sense of vitality
that makes a Town Center a place to gather, and turn the Sunriver commercial core into positive,
successful place to do business.
In order for the Sunriver Town Center to be successful, SilverStar Destinations or any developer must be
able to deliver what the market wants — including commercial, retail, residential and community
offerings. To that end, we hereby submit the attached alternate code text to establish a floor area ratio
of 1.0 to control density in the proposed Sunriver Town Center District in lieu of the current proposal of
22 residential density units per acre.
On 5/20/08, the attached text changes were unanimously approved by the Sunriver Owners Association
Board of Directors. We hereby urge the Deschutes County Planning and Legal staffs to thoroughly
review the attached text and make a similar recommendation. We look forward to reviewing this
request with you over the next couple of weeks and again at our hearing with the Deschutes County
Commission on 6/4/08.
4
Exhibit A: FLOOR AREA RATIO DEFINED
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR):
The total square
footage of a building or
buildings divided by
the total square
footage of the site
area.
Example:
Building: 40,000 SF
Lot size: 40,000 SF
FAR: 1 to 1
L:
Source: Concord Square Planning & Development, Inc.
THEVILLAGEATSUNRIVER
Sunriver Town Center
ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
FAR
SF /Acre
Residential Efficiency
(Net Sellable Res /Gross Res)
Commercial Program -GSF
Max. Residential Units /Acre
1.0
43,560
80%
85,000
22
Exhibit C
FAR 1.0 vs 22 Residences /Acre Density Analysis
(Based on varied residence and site sizes)
OPTION 1: Site Area (Acres)
17 BELOW FAR DENSITY
EQUAL TO FAR DENSITY
EXCEEDS FAR DENSITY
J
FAI€-INAXIMUM DI NSITY , ;F
_,
22 UNITS /ACRE 1,000 SF /UNIT -
FARMAXJMUM41.q. - TY
22UNITS /ACRE - 1,281.SF /UNIT
22:UNITS /ACRE - 1,000: SF/UNIT .
22 UNITS /ACRE. -1;500 SF /UNIT
22 UNITS /ACRE .1289'SF /UNIT .
Gross Developable Area
740,520
Max. Residential Units
374
Max. Residential Units
374
Max. Residential Units
374
less Ground Floor Parking
(56,225)
Tess Ground Floor Parking
(85,575)
(122,575)
less Commercial Program
(85,000)
Avg. Residence Size
1,000
Avg. Residence Size
1,281
Avg. Residence Size
1,500
Gross Residential Area
599,295
Avg. Residence Size
Gross Residential Area
744,185
Reduce for Res. Efficiency
80%
Reduce for Res. Efficiency
80%
Net Sellable Residential Area
479,436
Net Sellable Res'I Area
374,000
Net Sellable Res'1 Area
479,094
Net Sellable Res'I Area
561,000
595,518
Net Sellable Res'I Area
VARIANCE FROM FAR
105,436
VARIANCE FROM FAR
342
VARIANCE FROM FAR
(81,564)
OPTION 2: Site Area (Acres)
21
BELOW FAR DENSITY
�
EQUAL TO FAR DENSITY
EXCEEDS FAR DENSITY
FARMAXJMUM41.q. - TY
=
22:UNITS /ACRE - 1,000: SF/UNIT .
:::
22 UNITS /ACRE .1289'SF /UNIT .
..
22-UNfl /ACRE -1,500 SF /UNIT
Gross Developable Area
914,760
Max. Residential Units
462
Max. Residential Units
462
Max. Residential Units
462
Tess Ground Floor Parking
(85,575)
(122,575)
less Commercial Program
(85,000)
Avg. Residence Size
1,000
Avg. Residence Size
1,289
1,299
1,500
Avg. Residence Size
Gross Residential Area
744,185
Reduce for Res. Efficiency
80%
Net Sellable Residential Area
595,348
Net Sellable Res'1 Area
462,000
Net Sellable Res'I Area
595,518
Net Sellable Res'I Area
693,000
VARIANCE FROM FAR
133,348
VARIANCE FROM FAR
(170)
VARIANCE FROM FAR
(97,652)
OPTION 3 Site Area (Acres)
26.5 _
!! !S
�
EQUAL TO.F ENS :..
� F IS
FAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
, t
22 UNITS /ACRE 1,000 SF /UNIT
-.
22-UNITS fACRE--.1,299 SF /UNIT.
22 UNITS /ACRE ?1,500 SF /UNIT
Gross Developable Area
1,154,340
Max. Residential Units
583
Max. Residential Units
583
Max. Residential Units
583
Tess Ground Floor Parking
(122,575)
Tess Commercial Program
(85,000)
Avg. Residence Size
1,000
Avg. Residence Size
1,299
Avg. Residence Size
1,500
Gross Residential Area
946,765
Reduce for Res. Efficiency
80%
Net Sellable Residential Area
757,412
Net Sellable Res'i Area
583,000
Net Sellable Res'I Area
757,317
Net Sellable Res'i Area
874,500
VARIANCE FROM FAR
174,412
VARIANCE FROM FAR
95
VARIANCE FROM FAR
(117,088)
5/13/08
1
Sunriver Town Center
SUMMARY STATISTICS
Exhibit D
MAXIMUM OCCUPANT LOAD FOR 17 ACRE SITE AT FAR = 1.0
RESIDENTIAL MIX DETAILS
5/15/08
t '
Studio
1 Br
1+ Loft,
C [fffff5e i
321
479,093
1,493
2,359
[argeAvg UnitSize
373
480,238
1,288
2,443
Medium A :. Unit Size
475
479,750
1,010
2,446
24
565
480,250
850
2,317
RESIDENTIAL MIX DETAILS
5/15/08
t '
Studio
1 Br
1+ Loft,
2
2+ Loft
3br
;TN 3br:
TH 4br
Unit ( I: k
0
1359.
. 1400
1750
& ..
24
} _
C P
rs; §fm
X750
w.i.
E
w 4 S'
20%
vi< td'
25%
.. "' '
40.0%
- --
% of Unit Type in Mix
0%
5%
5%
2.5%
2.5%
100.0%
w t "
Qty
-
16
16
64
80
128
8
8
321
Net Sq Ft
-
12,038
14,445
80,250
112,350
224,700
16,050
19,260
479,093
Max Occ
2
4
6
6
8
8
8
10
*_
Total Max. Occupants
-
64
96
385
642
1,027
64
8o
2,359
Large Avg. Unit Size ;
% of Unit Type in Mix
5%
10%
15%
25%
20%
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
100.0%
Qty
19
37
56
93
75
75
9
9
373
Net Sq Ft
9,325
27,975
50,355
116,563
104,440
130,550
18,650
22,380
480,238
Max Om
2
4
6
6
8
8
8
10
Total Max. Occupants
37
149
336
560
597
597
75
93
2,443
Medium Avg. Unit Size
%of Unit Type in Mix
20.0%
30.0%
10.0%
15.00%
15%
5.0%
2.5%
2.5%
100.0%
Qty
95
143
48
71
71
24
12
12
475
Net Sq Ft
47,500
106,875
42,750
89,063
99,750
41,563
23,750
28,500
479,750
Max Occ
2
4
6
6
8
8
8
10
Total Max. Occupants
190
570
285
428
570
190
95
119
2,446
%of Unit Type in Mix
30%
35%
0%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100.0%
_
Qty
170
198
-
198
-
-
-
-
565
Net Sq Ft
84,750
148,313
-
247,188
-
-
-
-
480,250
Max 0cc
2
339
4
791
6
6
1,187
8
8
8
10
Total Max. Occupants
2,317