Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunriver Amend - Written CommentsPublic Comments 5-28-08 through 6-17-08 Terri, Hello: The following represents my review of the latest information available on both yours and S... Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 1:17 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne; Board Cc: 'Savesunriver Website'; srscene@srowners.org; infosroa@srowners.org Subject: Feedback on the latest changes (as of 5-28-08) to PA -07-6 and TA 07-06 Terri, Hello: The following represents my review of the latest changes available on both yours and SROA's web site. I trust you will place it in the proper files for the Board of County Commissioners. Just finished this morning a review of the related 175 plus pages of data supporting this proposals latest zoning changes. I believe that most of this SROA information was only available during the last week. This information includes a number of presentations from Silver Stars consultant as well as the Counties most recent code changes. This information seems to be coming to the public some what late in the process of Citizens Involvement requirements, especially considering such a major zone change request. There also appears to be a large amount of key information missing from the Counties files that I just saw on line at 5ROA's web page last weekend, ref. F.A.R., Floor Area Ratio, which I believe is really the developers idea of a FAR...CE. The proposals zone request should be post poned till the completion of the Counties Comprehensive Plan update that I see you introduced at the Planning Commissioners May 8 th 2008 meeting. In regards to the related impact of the Deschutes County Codes on this proposal's changes ref. 23.400, 18.04, 18.116, 18.124, 18.104 and 18.108 I offer the following review with my concerns: The proposal as currently written does not meet the restrictive nature of the States Urban Unincorporated Community rules, ref. OAR 660-022 Division when it comes to the restriction on only Small Scale Low Impact New Commercial usages The definition of Hotel/Motel should certainly include the basic human requirements of having a bathroom in your time share rental. The Hotel/Motel definition in this proposal is classified as Commercial but they request to not include the actual unit being rented as also being Commercial. This should not be allowed. The current proposals building height changes in the zone application at over 75 feet does not meet the scale or perception of what Sunriver is and this excessive height should not be allowed. The current proposals parking plan does not meet what are the real requirements or address the past parking issues in Sunriver and should not be changed from th more restrictive County plans. Their Landscape definitions, which is intended to include such things as concrete as Landscape, is a real miss - application of the term improved Landscape. The TC zone proposal should not be allowed to leverage adjacent property not under their direct ownership at the time of application to meet the proposals required 15% Landscape needs. The County's Building Set back requirements should not be allowed to be modified just to meet the restrictive land available to this developer, or so they can make a few more bucks. The proposals open space definition changes requested cannot be seriously consider as good land planning. Concrete driveways or overhangs do not make good quality open space. The current proposals requests for a building of 60,000 square feet is out of scale for the planning restrictions/requirements out lined in the Oregon Administrative Rules in OAR 660. Ref. regarding only allowing new Small Scale Low Impact Commercial usages allowed in our Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. In that Sunriver's boundaries are less then 12 miles from Bend's Urban Growth boundary it is imperative that the States Land Use laws, designed to protect our community, need to be followed. Sunriver is not a Destination Resort but is planned as an Urban Unincorporated Community, which has more restrictive State Planning Land Use Rules. Ref. OAR 660-022 Div. The developer's latest F.A.R. density calculation presentation appears to be based on the fact that only the 5/28/2008 Terri, Hello: The following represents my review of the latest information available on both yours and S... Page 2 of 2 assigned quantity of people will ever use these time share rental units they want to build in the village. That certainly is not the case history in Sunriver. For a recent example Sunriver police where called a number of times over just this last weekend to manage a rental house that is located directly behind my home in what is o be a Single Residential Home zone. It had excessive noisy people and their SUV's were parked on the common area as well cis blocking the traffic. This home was rented by Sunset Reality and we have had many problems with this commercial rental business in the past. Currently occupancy rates/rules in the county are not enforced or we would not have had the 30 plus people in the rental home that weekend. I'm sure if you wanted you could verify this issue with a call to the SR police department regarding the incidents on May 25, 2008, ref. 1 Pyramid Mountain Lane. The police officer on duty told me that these rental outfits don't listen to them and there is not much they can do? This is a very common problem in Sunriver and again is the reason why parking requirements should not be reduced further then the current county code already dictates. These commercial rental businesses in our Sunriver single residential zoned home areas in my opinion is the key reason that we have seen a decline in our permanent residential population in Sunriver. These commercial rental businesses tend to destroy the sense of a community. They bring in trash, crime, noise and unwanted excessive activity at all times of the day and night. Currently one of the asserted local goals of this proposal is to strengthen the rental pool and improve the market draw but it is clear that it ignores the requirements contained within Sunriver's Long Range plan that is to increase the permanent residential population. This I believe is a key point that has not been properly addressed the fact that this proposal claims to reverse the loss of permanent residents in Sunriver but provides no convincing evidence of that fact. I believe the issue with the decline in permanent residents in Sunriver is directly related to the rental activities that the County has allowed to flourish, mostly due to room tax revenues generated in our single residential zoned properties. Tourists make lousy neighbors and Commercial usage Code enforcement in the Sunriver Single Residential Home zones needs to be enforced prior to approving any new Sunriver Town Center specific zone changes. The F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) proposal, which I point out isn't available on the County web site for public review, is new, very confusing and complex in its intended use. I believe it is a slight of hand by the developer on the real time share residential density sales planned. Until its impact is better understood it should not take the place of the current residential density guidelines proposed by the Planning Commissioners @ I believe 17 per acre of which the current county restriction of 10 I believe is more appropriate if any residential is allowed at all. Sunriver should not become some developer's idea of a test case for the County or the other multitude of the areas new resorts. There is no identifying cohesive logic in their presentations that describes just how with an increase of 150 plus units (321 to 565) that the real maximum occupancy would actually go down as they contend? What stops the next village owner, with grand ideas on how to make a fast buck, from coming in asking to the next Board of Commissioners to increase the FAR of 1 to say 2? Nothing! Again, current rental occupancy restrictions as well as parking issues in the County are not enforced and one could say that the County has, in the way of room tax revenues, a financial benefit in ignoring the enforcement of these rules. The FAR, as proposed, provides for so much flexibility to the developer that it really reduces the requirements of Land Use Planning to just trust me and provides the community with nothing certain! This proposal originally came about to improve the mall? Where is the mall improvements? All I see in this proposal are a bunch of rented time share pods that all the local realtors can't wait to sell. I contend that there isn't sufficient public benefit to be derived from allowing any of this proposals Town Center zone changes. For the reasons cited above and discussed in my prior input, as well as the lateness of the developers bunch of changes, I'd suggest that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed Zone Change out right or at best transfer it back to the Planning Commission for further public review if for no other reasons then the fact that the current proposal does not even meet the original Planning Commissioners approved vote conditions. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to make input to this zone change process. Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) 5/28/2008 010 Dear Commissioners: While attending the April 30 Board of County Commissioners meeting held in Sunriver I was surprised to hear one of the Commissioners try to appease an owner's testimony of the problems with the text amendments allowed building heights by referring to the balloon test that was presented to the Board at the April 9th hearing. This is the same balloon test presented over six months ago and that was refuted at the November 8, 2007 Deschutes County Planning Commission hearing. The balloons, as was stated at the hearing, are an extremely poor representation of the actual visual impact of a building. After all they are only balloons. That is they are not ten's of thousand of feet across, the tallest allowed building has a footprint of 45,000 square feet, they were not flown at the actual height of the buildings allowed by the text amendment and lastly they did not reflect the actual tree coverage that would have remained under the draft plan at the time (many trees are to be removed as allowed by the text amendment language). Even with all of these shortcomings of this "test" the conclusions still stated that the buildings would have a visual impact on the surrounding residences (even though the balloons were hard to see from the airport they were easy to see from the actual neighboring homes). It must be remembered that one of the beauties of Central Oregon is the forest canopy is not so dense that it blocks all light. It is somewhat sparse at elevation allowing for a wonderful filtered light that makes the forest areas so inviting. The drawback to this type of forest is its inability to visually block items at any appreciable height. This is a fact that the planners of Sunriver understood and took into account when they established the very stringent and well thought out and considered height limits — currently at 30 feet — for buildings within Sunriver, which includes the mall area. If the test had been more representative of the true visual impact of a building with a footprint of between 45,000 and 100,000 square feet as contemplated by the draft plans presented to date the results would have been significantly different (and I might say quite astonishing). As also stated the balloons were not flown at the actual allowed height of buildings per the current text amendment. The text amendment allows for buildings of 60 feet plus an allowance of up to ten feet for grade and up to ten feet for structural elements on top of the building — for a total height of up to 80 feet. Additionally 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. If you were to add this extra amount onto the balloons as shown in the "test" they would be well above the average height of the tree canopy shown. And it should be noted that there is no restriction on the number of mixed use buildings, those with the 60 feet plus grad and structural elements allowances. The other major factor as to the actual visual impact of the building height as allowed within the text amendment has to do with the actual tree coverage within the area to be considered for the zoning the text amendment is defining. Numbers of trees will be destroyed to make way for the high-rise high-density condos allowed within the text amendment. This would further increase the visual impact of the buildings. The reason that this is so vitally important is that 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 and why we have all paid a premium for the privilege to live here. That the views of those who live close to the mall are not as valuable or worthy of protection as those who live far from the mall and would never see a building there of any height is simply wrong. It is why we ask that you challenge the appropriateness of the balloon test as a true measure of visual impacts and further that you do not approve the text amendment language allowing for heights of the excess currently proposed. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Don & Marcey Hutchison Salem & Sunriver June 3, 2008 RE: Sunriver revised zoning text amendment PA -07-6/ TA -07-6 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, The revised text amendments to change density from 22units/acre to FAR 1.0 does not change the fact this is still just a large scale high density condo project. The amendments don't fit the values of Sunriver and the same issues remain. Specifically HEIGHT and DENSITY: On the height issue, Silver Star presented on the April 9 meeting that the heights of 60 and 75 feet would not be a major issue, even for those concerned about it. They stated the "balloon test" could not be seen, the trees around the perimeter would block the tallest buildings, and a stepped construction would minimize impact. A balloon test and their justification have no meaning, these heights do not belong in Sunriver: 1) There is a probability any forest manager knows that beetle infestation or wildfire could wipe out a large portion of tall trees. The zoning would remain and 60/75 structures would be a dominant presence, as new vegetation would take decades to re -grow to screen the structures. 2) It is not just outside of the village area and the surrounding residences that height is an issue. From within the village, heights of 60/75 feet are too high, even with stepped construction. This will be a highly urbanized city landscape, the tallest east of the Cascades, taller than most of Oregon's other town centers in highly urbanized cities, right in the middle of the forest. This is not Whistler, Mammoth, Aspen or any ski resort that Silver Star can compare Sunriver to. Sunriver is a beautiful place, but it is flat, it has no high cliffs or steep terrain that meld architecture and landscape. On density, 22units/acre is too high and so is FAR 1.0 with comparable slightly less occupant load: 1) The density and corresponding occupant load forces construction of buildings that are too high with too much parking area while putting the common "vitality" area mostly into a narrow street with sidewalks. Not a very casual open area, family friendly, or full time resident environment that SROA wants to promote. 2) The density will place extra burdens on Sunriver facilities and will reduce property owner values/rental income by diluting the rental pool with even more, with smaller condos under FAR 1.0. Smaller condos will appeal to non -family, mostly rental interested parties. FAR or units/acre, whichever is used, should be reduced to 0.6 or 14 units/acre to lower density occupancy loads to around 1300 occupants. This will help limit building heights to 3 stories or 45 feet, provide adequate and lower parking impact, and provide for a larger and safer family friendly "vitality" area within the village. The "whole village area" is not meant for development strictly on the developer's terms. Sunriver is not there for the developer; they are here for us, in which good portions of owners don't want what they are currently offering. I'm for mall redevelopment and can see changing zoning to commercial/residential to help support construction and vitality. But I don't buy into the threshold premise that a very high number of units is needed to support a small commercial space (which has even been reduced further below the planning commission recommended 120,000 sf). There are already condo units surrounding two sides of the village; if this isn't working now, what's the difference between walking down stairs or across the street? If the developer can't reduce building heights and density occupancy load and commit to commercial with retail, then it shouldn't be built. I don't feel the character of Sunriver should be sacrificed under the pretension that it must be built with the current text amendment height and density occupant loads just to support an even now smaller commercial space. The text amendment should not be approved in its current form. Sincerely, Larry (& Lois) Read Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:38 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne; Board Cc: 'Savesunriver Website'; infosroa@srowners.org Subject: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again?????????????? Hello: I was planning my trip over to the June 4th Public meeting late last night when I looked at the County Web page and saw more revisions to the County Codes, ref. May 16th? Now I know this is fact, because I sent you a memo on this subject on May 28th in that I believed your files were missing some data. I was very surprised to see a new advisory attached to the same web site page information, that I had just finished reviewing, but now with May 16 revisions added. I also see just a few days before the meeting that your May 28th staff report # 4 is finally out and your department is now recommending time to review these changes. I also see that in your agenda memo you mention that this information was provided to your staff only on May 21st? We property tax payers, that own but not yet live in Sunriver, feel we are being disenfranchised by the current process. We try to stay on top of things that the locals are proposing and depend on the related County web page being updated in a timely fashion, should I not be so trusting of this technology? God only knows that the Sun -Rental Scene is always over a month out of date. I'm confused, should I make this meeting and if I do will there be public input allowed? How much time do concerned individuals have for input? What are we addressing in this meeting, last weeks codes or this weeks code changes? Please be advised I certainly don't plan to run thru the 175 plus pages again looking for all the changes for tomorrows meeting. I'm a Professional Engineer Registered in California and have worked on many complex projects in my past, and think this application is out of control, accordingly it should be denied! Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com 6/3/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bill Starks [bstarks@chamberscable.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:36 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Town Center Proposed Zoning Language -Managing Population Impact (PA -07-6 and TA -07-6) The Sunriver Community has voiced a continuous concern over the potential population increase the revitalized Village Mall could have on the greater community (amenities, pathways, roads, utilities, etc.). For that reason, a limit on Unit Density was incorporated from the start into the proposed zoning language with the number of potential residential units having been hotly debated for many months since. But I believe that the fundamental objective, population management, has been lost in a focus on the number of units which does NOT directly equate to number of people. It's the number of bedrooms (or "pillows") that truly matters and Unit Density does not adequately address this issue. Why is this? Because a "unit", except for lock -offs and hotel rooms under 800 sq ft, was never defined. It could be a studio (2 people) all the way to a 4 bedroom "house" (10 people). With the 375 unit limit imposed by the Unit Density language on the approximately 17 acres in the site today, this is a range from 750 (too few for retail success) to 3750 (too many for general community impact) in new full occupancy population capacity. And with the 50% lot coverage and 60 ft building height limitations in the draft language, there is far more than enough potential floor area to accommodate all 4 bedroom units and still have plenty of commercial space left over. Counting units just doesn't control population growth as one might expect as this does not directly limit the number of bedrooms. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a different approach to managing population growth. It doesn't consider how many units are built. What it does is limit the available floor area for all uses except sub -grade parking to a specific ratio to site size. The proposed FAR of 1.0 reduces the potential floor area which can be built by just over half from the previous language which was limited only by maximum lot coverage (50%) and building height, a FAR exceeding 2.0. With a FAR of 1.0 only 25% of the site could be covered with all 4 story construction. This is better for Sunriver as it will automatically generate more open space as the average number of floors in buildings will be greater than 2. But the more important benefit is that the available floor area for residential use is cut dramatically which directly equates to better limiting the potential population growth. Calculations of various unit size mixes (essentially number of bedrooms) from all small to all large show a large range in the total number of units but less than 25% change in the added population at full capacity. Of course, the allocation of more floor area to commercial use directly reduces that available for residential use. FAR accomplishes this by limiting the available floor area for residence units and associated number of bedrooms relatively independent of unit size mix. In summary, it can be shown that the application of a FAR of 1.0 produces essentially the same full occupancy capacity as 375 two bedroom units (6 people per unit) of approximately 2250 and further, that FAR does not let this increase with larger units while Unit Density does. And FAR has the advantage as commercial space increases, residential space is reduced. It's also easier for County Planning to implement I believe. FAR isn't a new idea as it turns out. It's in use in mixed use developments nationwide and many destination resorts with typical ratios near 1.0. It's used in the City of Bend. Having recognized this and seen that the concept does a much better job of controlling population growth, the SROA Board in its May 20, 2008 special meeting unanimously approved its incorporation into the proposed zoning language. I urge that the Commissioners do the same expeditiously. These remarks are submitted as a Sunriver owner and not on behalf of the SROA Board on which I am also a Director and Association Vice President. Bill Starks 10 Loon Lane 6/4/2008 Page 2 of 2 Sunriver 598-7793 bstarks@chamberscable.com 6/4/2008 FW: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again99799999999777 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:56 AM To: 'Savesunriver Website'; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again?????????????? Attachments: _AVG certification_.txt Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com From: Bill Starks [mailto:bstarks@chamberscable.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:27 PM To: webweb@teleport.com Cc: Wayne Thomas; Tom Ped; Karen Pitner; Herb Dix; Doris Brannan; Dennis Wood; Cheryl Fellers; Dave Finney; Bill Peck Subject: Fw: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again?????????????? The BOCC is unlikely to take action on the new proposals tomorrow further extending the public hearing if they follow the recommendations from Planning Staff as far as we can tell from the latest Staff Report. And you are right, the latest revisions only hit the county website yesterday although they have been on the SROA website since 5/17. But the essence of the changes relate to the recommendations made by Dave Leland (consultant) at the 5/10 SROA Board meeting which have been supported by SROA's consultant, James Lewis. I can't tell you what you should do but my sense is little will happen tomorrow. There has been some indication that the hearing will be extended to at least 6/25 but I have no specific information to confirm this. Hope this helps a little. Bill Starks Original Message From: Marti Croal To: Bill Peck ; Dennis Wood ; Doris Brannan ; Wayne & Linda Thomas ; Karen Pitner ; Bill Starks ; Tom Ped ; Herbert Dix ; Cheryl Fellers ; Dave Finney Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:01 PM Subject: FW: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again?????????????? Forwarded to Peck and BOD members. Received via infosroa@ srowners.org Marti Forwarded Message From: Merlyn & Linda Webster <webweb@teleport.com> 6/4/200R FW: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again7979'977779777 Page 2 of 2 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:37:32 -0700 To: <terrip@co.deschutes.or.us>, <Board@ co.deschutes.or.us> Cc: 'Savesunriver Website' <info©savesunriver.org>, <infosroaCasrowners.orq> Subject: PA 07-6 & TA- 07-6 more changes again?7????7?7?777? Hello: I was planning my trip over to the June 4th Public meeting late last night when I looked at the County Web page and saw more revisions to the County Codes, ref. May 16th? Now I know this is fact, because I sent you a memo on this subject on May 28th in that I believed your files were missing some data. I was very surprised to see a new advisory attached to the same web site page information, that I had just finished reviewing, but now with May 16 revisions added. I also see just a few days before the meeting that your May 28th staff report # 4 is finally out and your department is now recommending time to review these changes. I also see that in your agenda memo you mention that this information was provided to your staff only on May 21st? We property tax payers, that own but not yet live in Sunriver, feel we are being disenfranchised by the current process. We try to stay on top of things that the locals are proposing and depend on the related County web page being updated in a timely fashion, should I not be so trusting of this technology? God only knows that the Sun -Rental Scene is always over a month out of date. I'm confused, should I make this meeting and if I do will there be public input allowed? How much time do concerned individuals have for input? What are we addressing in this meeting, last weeks codes or this weeks code changes? Please be advised I certainly don't plan to run thru the 175 plus pages again looking for all the changes for tomorrows meeting. I'm a Professional Engineer Registered in California and have worked on many complex projects in my past, and think this application is out of control, accordingly it should be denied! Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com End of Forwarded Message 6/4/2008 ere erg . t" i s ✓�S z �'r. '-: * w 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 4, 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: 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 files. This written testimony is submitted to specifically comment on the request of SilverStar Destinations, LLC ("SilverStar") to utilize the Floor Area Ratio methodology as the means of regulating population impacts in the proposed Town Center District in Sunriver. The SROA Board fully endorses the Floor Area Ratio methodology now before you. In reaching its decision to support the Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") methodology, the SROA Board and its Development Review Team had to become informed and knowledgeable about FAR in order to analyze potential impacts from this population impact regulation tool. While the SROA Board and the Development Review Team did not have an abundance of time to get up to speed, it worked extremely hard and long to do so given the importance of mall revitalization to Sunriver. The SROA obtained input from development and land use experts and really dove into the details of the FAR methodology. At the end of the SROA's learning curve came the conclusion that the FAR methodology was the appropriate tool to regulate population impacts, particularly when used in conjunction with a Development Agreement. FAR with a private Development Agreement between the SROA and SilverStar balances the Community's need for assurances regarding the exterior mass and scale of the development and a developer's need for flexibility to respond to an always changing market. 5539.49\06 04 2008 written testimony.doc 57455 ABBOT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 3278 • SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707 • (541)593-2411 • TOLL FREE (888) 284-6639 • FAX (541) 593-5669 www.sunriverowners.org Board of County Commissioner for Deschutes County June 4, 2008 Page 2 In SROA's opinion, some of the specific benefits of utilizing the FAR methodology are the following: • A mechanism to control the bulk and mass of structures, district -wide • Allowing for a greater mix in the types of buildings and uses • The very real potential that the overall development will have more open areas without buildings because FAR generally results in a decrease in land used for building footprints • A tool that offers developer flexibility and the ability to respond to changing conditions, enhancing the overall likelihood of success of the entire project The SROA Board of Directors encourages this Board to endorse the FAR methodology and proceed with approval of SilverStar's plan and text amendments for the creation of the Town Center District in Sunriver. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these applications. Respectfully submitted G✓1-40J c:ilea4(44" DORIS BRANNAN President of the Sunriver Owners Association 5539.49\06 04 2008 written testimony.doc Dear SROA Board, I read with great interest the motion that was passed in the Special Meeting of May 20, 2008 relating to the new language and definition for the Town Center District. Although the support for a Floor Area Ratio measurement system has been discussed in some detail (although I believe the true impacts are much greater than have been reported) one of the most significant changes has almost been entirely overlooked. This has to do with the changes the SROA Board made to the Comprehensive County Plan. As the Plan text now reads (23.40.025 B.2.c.) 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. My one question with respect to this motion is HOW AND WHY WAS THIS DONE? Is this not the very land that the owners of Sunriver voted, in the largest voter turnout in the history of Sunriver, not to sell to SilverStar for inclusion into the Town Center district? Does this motion now allow SilverStar to utilize the very SROA owned land involved in the vote toward the restrictions and allowances within the Town Center zone definitions? Does this not in effect not only totally usurp the outcome of the special election ballot but also give the use of the very land that was the center of that vote to SilverStar for free? Is it the will of the current SROA Board to allow SilverStar to utilize our land for inclusion in the FAR determination giving them almost 300,000 additional buildable square feet? If this is not the intent of this Board then why would the Town Center language be written as such? The other lands are, as stated within the language itself, already zoned either Commercial District or Community District — existing zones. Why would the description of the zone itself describe changing the zoning on existing land? Should not the zone be passed by Deschutes County before the SROA Board moves to include it in their language? And certainly they should wait until such time as the zone language is approved by Deschutes County before they take any action to change existing lands zoning. And they should hold another Special Election if they want to include the very land that was already the center of a Special Election in this new zone. As you can tell I am most concerned that the SROA Board is acting without concern or regard for all of the owners of Sunriver. The outcome of the Special Election seems to have had no discernable effect upon the actions of the Board. Clearly the election showed that the owners of Sunriver are divided. As such the SROA Board should be spending its energies working toward an agreeable compromise to the Mall redevelopment issue, not toward passing new language that has no time for meaningful owner input and goes against what so many owners have directly stated via their vote. The SROA Board should be the owners voice in these matters that so deeply effect all of us — just look at the over 3,000 votes that were cast. Far too often, as I believe is the case in this matter, the Board is seen as a rubber stamp for whatever SilverStar has proposed. Please begin to represent ALL of the Sunriver owners and work toward a compromise instead of going forward as if there is no opposition and the vote never took place. This path of the Board's does nothing to help to bring our community together nor does it serve to better our community. I implore all of you to act to restore respect for the Board and to act in the interest of ALL Sunriver owners (I realize that I have said this earlier but it is so fundamental and so very important). I appreciate your time in answering each of my questions above and in considering my pleas that followed. Don Hutchison Co -Founder SaveSunriver.org 7 Fox Lane Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:41 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne; Board Subject: FAR Analysis Attachments: FAR vs Residence -Acre Analysis.pdf Terri, I have attached a FAR vs. Residences/Acre density analysis similar to the one that Mark Smuland has presented for SilverStar. It uses similar assumptions but has what we believe to be more realistic residence sizes (based upon SilverStar testimony as well as comparable condominium complexes both in Sunriver and Deschutes County). It also has a view, Option B, based upon the Deschutes County Planning Commission residences/acre factor that was part of their condition for approval of the initial text amendment (I took the 500 units for 26.5 acres and calculated the residences/acre amount as Commissioner Kelly Smith did at the January hearing). The final option presented, Option C, shows the comparison with current Text Amendment language incorporated into the calculation for the Net Sellable Residential Area (the two previous options used the calculations as presented by Mark but are not in-line with current text language regarding the treatment of parking and the minimum commercial space). The items that are most notable are that in every case the allowed residential under the FAR measurement, based on a 1.0 amount, is greater - and in most cases over 20% greater - than that allowed under a units/acre measure. That includes not only actual residences but also the residential square footage amounts. This is in keeping with what SilverStar's, and now also the SROA's, consultant Dave Leland has stated both before the Board of County Commissioners and the SROA Board. That he thought SilverStar should have more, not fewer, units than allowed by the 22 units/acre measure. This is in spite of the Deschutes County Planning Commissions official conditions and stated concerns over the density at 22 units/acre being too high. This was also after the Sunriver special election that showed that over 1,400 owners were concerned with the previous allowed 22 units/acre - when they voted to defeat the sle of SROA owned land to SilverStar for inclusion in the Town Center District. The new FAR measure is clearly a way for SilverStar to achieve their goal of more residences and it should be considered in that light. Additionally the new text language calls for only 150 square feet of commercial space for each residence. In reviewing the FAR Analysis worksheets from both Mark and myself you can easily see that this can create a significant reduction in commercial space from even the minimum of 85,000 square feet that the Planning Commission thought was insufficient and to correct it they added a condition of a minimum of 120,000 square feet. The new Text Amendment language goes in the opposite direction. Thank you for your review and consideration of the impacts of the new Text Amendment language. Sincerely, Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane Sunriver & Salem, Oregon 6/9/2008 Tr• -c c < N rti - n) °o,CD tD 3 3 rt D m c-1 m m 7'* o_ ,K' M O_ (fl 3 n '4 CD D • 3 3 3 a > > a• ✓ °3 3 m cn a a 7 T o m 4. N rt rt ID Su En LS N ?7 7 . CD • C C rt VI Quo o m < EnID ID a N En. n a. -, (D O (n rt 7. 7 C 3 CD am vm n N i-0 O IT j N ma 7 N 7 .7•r �^ 0 n Xa., ° 3 rt m on • w 3• 7 = O Iii- S o. c 3 is c 3 m 3 o rt 7 N e7F o (9 =;, o T 3 o ED- c a 3 x c 7o U1 IT3 7 c 'o D c Z v(1); ; 3 v mem 0. a o,_ 7 -0 O CD7 7 Cii r°N IO m 3 o's n0 n3 m ^• ° _. n 7 a 3 ' m o 7 0 7 7 ~ O In 2 • O co o d o in C SD V1 In III 7 3 o. In ▪ M o- r w u) m n • mcr. a•m 3•? rn No 7 — O 3 m m 01 rn C In 7 01 3 o a m 70- en 'r u) Cu N In T N ,O 0 3. m m 7 Ino 3 o C n 7m 3 Tm O 9 ..-:•o c v a3 fD F 3 o m w ° o d F., N Q N T ID O O O' 03 ° o10 0 o� \ rD c o. In m Net Sellable Residential Area Varies Gross Residential Area Varies Reduce for Res. Efficiency 80% Gross Developable Area 740,520 Less: Ground Floor Parking Ici - Less: Commercial Program [di Varies FAR MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTION C: Site Area (Acres) 17 BELOW FAR DENSITY BELOW FAR DENSITY BELOW FAR DENSITY Net Sellable Res'I Area 317,900 FAR Sellable Res'I Area 519,216 VARIANCE FROM FAR 201,316 Units per FAR 610 Add'l Units per FAR 236 Gross Residential Area 649,020 Max. Residential Units 374 Avg. Residence Size 850 Less: Commercial Program Ed] (91,500) 22 UNITS/ACRE - 850 SF/UNIT Net Sellable Res'I Area 374,000 528,936 VARIANCE FROM FAR 154,936 Units per FAR 529 Add'I Units p r FAR 155 Gross Residential Area 661,170 Max. Residential Units 374 Avg. Residence Size 1,000 Less: Commercial Program Idi (79,350) 22 UNITS/ACRE- 1,000 SF/UNIT Net Sellable Res'I Area 411,400 534,216 VARIANCE FROM FAR 122,816 Units per FAR 485 Add'I Units per FAR 111 01 (72 Gross Residential Area 667,770 Max. Residential Units 374 Avg. Residence Size 1,100 Less: Commercial Program Id] 7501 N' C' Z n; m Ni. of U: : ,m 2 et Gross Residential Area 599,295 Reduce for Res. Efficiency 80% Gross Developable Area 740,520 Less: Ground Floor Parking (56,225) Less: Commercial Program (85,000) FAR MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTION B: Site Area (Acres) 17 BELOW FAR DENSITY BELOW FAR DENSITY BELOW FAR DENSITY 17o• m X H a` 2 D 1 M A V b A w 01 Net Sellable Res'I Area 272,672 VARIANCE FROM FAR 206,765 Units per FAR 564 Add'I Units per FAR 243 Max. Residential Units 321 Avg. Residence Size 850 38.87 UNITS/ACRE 143- 850-SF/UNIT; Net Sellable Res'I Area 320,790 VARIANCE FROM FAR 158,646 Units per FAR 479 Add'I Units per FAR 159 Max. Residential Units 321 Avg. Residence Size 1,000 cos m a 0 o :thZ' Net Sellable Res'I Area 352,869 VARIANCE FROM FAR 126,567 Units per FAR 436 Add.' Units per FAR 115 Max. Residential Units 321 Avg. Residence Size 1,100 co, cov C pJJ m o^ 0 C' Z m• Ci 73 -n X3mv�p D 27 3 In m Ip (DD (D 7 (D N rt a 6. cr I11 [ 7 D 171 N O nn aU ^� qm m m In O U1 o co in N O O 01 N O O O SNOI1dWfSSV SISAIVNV a W F a m a0 a. 7 • < dN Ai ea fD co M 37.• V • H H fl. r) f.D y H � an !D • "t • m av fD Z � fD n DI r1' 3 '< O H C1 ca. Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bill Starks [bstarks@chamberscable.com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:33 AM To: Don & Marcey Hutchison; dbrannan@chamberscable.com; hddennis@sunrivertelecom.com; kpitner@chamberscable.com; willyfin@chamberscable.com; srhome@cmc.net; hdix@cmc.net; cher66ry@aol.com; clairetom@msn.com Cc: Bill Peck; Brooke Snavely; Board; Terri Hansen Payne; Tamara MacLeod Subject: Re: Comprehensive County Plan language changes Don, thanks for your letter but I believe you are not interpreting the proposed language correctly. This language was put in at the insistence of the SROA Board to prevent any lands outside the original 26.5 acre plan from ever becoming zoned "Town Center". It does NOT place any lands inside this boundary automatically into such a zone which was and still is the case. To do so still requires a rezone application by the associated property owner. This protection has not changed. BiII Starks Original Message From: Don & Marcey Hutchison To: dbrannan@chamberscable.com ; bstarksta7chamberscable.com ; hddennisasunrivertelecom.com ; kpitner@chamberscable.com ; willyfin@chamberscable.com ; srhomea,cmc.net ; hdixcc'�i cmc.net ; cher66ryaaol.com ; clairetom@msn.com Cc: Bill Peck ; Brooke Snavely ; board(c�co.deschutes.or.us ; Terri Hansen Payne Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 6:07 PM Subject: Comprehensive County Plan language changes Dear SROA Board Members, Please read the attached letter concerning the recent changes to the Comprehensive County Plan. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane & Salem CC: Board of County Commissioners 6/9/0008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:13 AM To: Bill Starks; dbrannan@chamberscable.com; hddennis@sunrivertelecom.com; kpitner@chamberscable.com; willyfin@chamberscable.com; srhome@cmc.net; hdix@cmc.net; cher66ry@aol.com; clairetom@msn.com Cc: Bill Peck; Brooke Snavely; Board; Terri Hansen Payne; Tamara MacLeod Subject: RE: Comprehensive County Plan language changes Thanks Bill. I know I did react a little strongly, however the actual process to include the SROA owned land is at the sole direction of the SROA Board, am I correct - or does it go out for a vote? That is my major concern that the language change makes the next step fairly elementary and I believe owners would like, and expect, to have more input into such a major change. Again thanks for your timely response, Don Hutchison From: bstarks@chamberscable.com To: dmbhutch@msn.com; dbrannan@chamberscable.com; hddennis@sunrivertelecom.com; kpitner@chamberscable.com; willyfin@chamberscable.com; srhome@cmc.net; hdix@cmc.net; cher66ry@aol.com; clairetom@msn.com CC: billp@srowners.org; brookes@srowners.org; board@co.deschutes.or.us; terrip@co.deschutes.or.us; Tem@karnopp.com Subject: Re: Comprehensive County Plan language changes Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:33:03 -0700 bon, thanks for your letter but I believe you are not interpreting the proposed language correctly. This language was put in at the insistence of the SROA Board to prevent any lands outside the original 26.5 acre plan from ever becoming zoned "Town Center". It does NOT place any lands inside this boundary automatically into such a zone which was and still is the case. To do so still requires a rezone application by the associated property owner. This protection has not changed. Bill Starks Original Message From: Don & Marcey Hutchison To: dbrannan(a)chamberscable.com ; bstarks(c�chamberscable.com ; hddennis@sunrivertelecom.com ; kpitner@chamberscable.com ; willyfinCa�chamberscable.com ; srhome@cmc.net ; hdix@cmc.net ; cher66ry(cr7aol.com ; clairetom(a�msn.com Cc: Bill Peck ; Brooke Snavely ; board(&co.deschutes.or.us ; Terri Hansen Payne Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 6:07 PM Subject: Comprehensive County Plan language changes Dear SROA Board Members, Please read the attached letter concerning the recent changes to the Comprehensive County Plan. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, 6/9/2008 Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane & Salem CC: Board of County Commissioners 6/9/2008 Page 2 of 2 1115 Pine St Richland WA, 99354 June 6, 2008 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Suite 200 Bend OR 97701-1960 Re: Input for the planned June 25, 2008 County Commission Public Hearing on the Sunriver Town Center proposal Dear Commissioners: My wife Susan and I have been Sunriver home owners and part time residents since 2001. We are deeply concerned with and have been actively engaged in the hearings, meetings, and other discussions concerning the Town Center (TC) development proposed for the area currently occupied by the Sunriver Mall. We have provided written and oral input on this issue on several occasions. Recent developments, including the latest of a seemingly endless series of proposed changes to the TC zoning waivers, and the interim results of a mediation session reported in May 17, 2008 "Settlement Conference Report" by Judge Paul J. Lipscomb, now compel us to provide additional input to the Commission for your consideration. I promise to avoid too much repetition of previous input. My primary comments relate to new changes proposed by SilverStar that include substitution of a "Floor Area Ratio (FAR)" in place of the current "units/acre approach employed by Deschutes County for controlling housing density, and the proposed addition of 6 acres of SROA land to the area to be included in the requested zoning changes for the TC district. In summary we oppose both changes and urge you to deny them from further consideration. We strongly oppose the proposed change to the FAR approach because it yields far too much authority to the developer in the key areas of residential unit size and density. In a 5/05/08 memo from the SROA Board to Sunriver Owners, it states that the developer could build 565 units on the 16.5 acres owned by Silverstar at the FAR= 1.0 proposed in the most recent waiver amendments. This amounts to over 34 units per acre, as compared to 22 units/acre originally proposed by the developer, and 18 units/acre specified by the Planning Commission as a condition of their recommendation to the County Commission for approving the TC amendments. Even more significantly, if the Commission approves the FAR proposal, the developer could at his sole discretion build a much larger number of units by just making them smaller! We believe this would be bad policy both for the current TC proposal and as a terrible precedent for possible future development in Sunriver. We also question whether this precedent would be good policy for the Deschutes County as a whole and we strongly urge the Commission to deny this proposed change to the TC zoning amendments. My second comment relates to the proposal by Silverstar to include in the Town Center District the 6 acres of SROA land that originally was proposed for sale to the developer, but which was subsequently rejected by vote of the owners. The result of the Owners ballot clearly established that the SROA land may not be sold and cannot therefore be developed in the TC project. The intent as well as the legal outcome of the Owners vote should be honored by the Commission by denying this change. Is there a precedent in Deschutes County for a developer to incorporate a neighbors' property in a requested re- zone of his own property, even if the neighbor has clearly stated he does not want to be a part of the proposed project? My next comment relates to item 2—a) of the "Settlement Conference Report" which states, "All parties agree that...The Mall must be improved in a manner consistent with the existing character and nature of the Sunriver Community." This fundamental principal agreed to the by parties in the mediation meeting embodies everything we have sought and still seek to accomplish in our inputs to the SROA Board, Silverstar and the Commission. It is inconceivable to us that an objective observer could conclude that the nature and scale of the development described in the current TC proposal, which would include buildings up to 75 ft high and 34 residential units/acre (or more!), can be deemed consistent with the standard embodied in item 2-a of the Settlement Report. We urge the Commission to do whatever you can to ensure that the mediation effort succeeds in reaching a compromise acceptable to all parties. My second comment on the Settlement Conference Report relates to item 2-b), which states; "In order to be successful, the Mall must be commercially viable." Nobody can seriously quarrel with the intent of this goal. However, we do not believe that the current TC proposal provides an appropriate means to achieve the stated objective. The developer has asserted on numerous occasions (without providing credible evidence) that the retail sector of the TC proposal cannot be successful in Sunriver without subsidy by sales of a large number of on-site residential properties. We simply do not accept this premise. Clearly, a high quality, low impact real estate development could stand on its' own on the mall land, as evidenced by the fact that the Fremont Crossing development that abuts the Mall was successful at about 6 units per acre based on two story condos. We believe that it is just good business sense that if the retail element of the Town Center is viable, it too should stand on its own on independent funding, without subsidy by the real estate part of the proposal. The consultant hired by the SROA to evaluate the Silverstar TC proposal reported that 60% of town center developments in recent years have failed. If this is true, the Silverstar proposal potentially subjects Sunriver owners to a substantial risk (at least 60% probability, perhaps greater in today's market) that we could end up with a disaster in the center of our community. Is that risk balanced by the extreme nature of changes in the architectural and ecological environment that the TC would impose on the Sunriver Community? We think not. Finally, as previously stated before and in the above commentary, we are concerned about many precedents that would be established by the Town Center development. Although language in the zoning waiver proposal states that the current waivers are intended only for the Sunriver Mall redevelopment, we suspect that approval of the zoning waivers could put substantial pressure on the Board and the Commission to extend such waivers to other areas of Sunriver, and perhaps even more broadly to other rural communities in Deschutes County. We note that Sunriver owners have been repeatedly assured that the zoning changes are just the first step and that numerous opportunities for public input will be provided in subsequent steps of the review and approval process to resolve remaining issues. Unfortunately, in view of the past inflexibility of the developer and the SROA Board to consider compromise in any significant manner on the Town Center proposal, we are not confident that skeptical Sunriver owners can or will have a significant impact on the progress of this proposal once the zoning waivers have been approved. To summarize, we respectfully request that the Commission deny the FAR proposal and the proposed addition of 6 acres to the TC district. Furthermore, to reach a reasonable compromise that may provide a way out of the current mess, we urge the Commission to consider increasing the required open space to substantially more than the proposed 50%, reducing the building heights by at least one floor, and decreasing the unit density to at most that recommended by the Planning Commission in the January, 10 2008 hearing (18 units per gross acre). Again, thank you for your consideration. Dennis and Susan Kreid Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bruce MacCaul [bgmc2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 7:04 PM To: Board Subject: Silverstar Proposed Towncenter District in Sunriver Subject: Written Testimony re: The Silverstar Proposed Towncenter District in Sunriver The community of Sunriver registered its negative opinion of the Silverstar proposal by voting down the sale of additional urbanizable acreage to them. Many view Siverstar's proposal to be just a big condo/timeshare development with only lip service paid to redeveloping a commercial village. If their proposal had been two stories of residential above one story of commercial, I believe the community would have supported the concept and the sale of the additional acreage to them would have been approved. Now that Silverstar has only 17 acres, they want to "Change the Dance" by re -writing the ground rules to a new measure of density. Units per Acre would be replaced by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Given fixed height limits and land size, FAR would allow the developer to build more square footage resulting in more units than the previous "units per Acre" limit would allow. Each unit would bring at least one car into the community. Designs would tend to maximize the number of square feet in a building resulting in bland, boxy structures with smaller size units. Commercial could be even further reduced. For developers, more square feet translates into more potential profit. For the community more square feet translates into more smaller units / higher density, and into infrastructure problems and lifestyle changes. Let's not "Change the Dance" to a poorly understood and cloudy measure which may or may not produce the results that the community wants. I urge you to: 1) Reject FAR and continue to use Units per acre (A clearly objective measure ) as the primary density measure. Say, at 18.87 units per acre. 2) Reduce the height limit so that only two stories of residential are allowed. (This allows townhomes above commercial. ) 3) Adopt a commercial ratio of say, 5,000 sq. ft. per acre. After all, it is a commercial village. Signed, Bruce & Mimi MacCaul 2 Shamrock Lane 6/90008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Doug Seator [dseator@chamberscable.com] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:38 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Town Center Proposed Zoning Language - Floor Area Ratio Concept (PA -07-6 & TA -07-6) Commissioners Daly, Melton and Luke I am emailing in support of using Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to measure density in the Sunriver Town Center Zone Language. A number of people in the Sunriver Community voiced concern over the impact on Sunriver amenities (swimming pools, bike paths, etc.) as a result of the redevelopment of the Sunriver Village. Thus a cap of 22 units/acre was established in the proposed zoning language. I believe that the most effective measure of density is the maximum number of people that can occupy the living units in the Village at any given time not the number of dwelling units. Fixed density does not account for the variable size of the units. Let me use the following examples to illustrate my point. With a 17 acre development and 22 units/acre the maximum number of units the developer can build is 374. Let's assume for this example that all 374 units the developer builds are studio apartments with a maximum occupancy of 2 which equates to a maximum occupancy at any one time of 748 people. This number of people will not be enough to support the retail component. At the other extreme let's assume all the units the developer builds are four bedroom units with a maximum sleeping capacity of 10 people per unit. This equates to a maximum occupancy at any one time of 3,740 people, probably on the high side. Since FAR measurers both bulk and mass of the entire development — commercial and residential — not the number of dwellings it puts an absolute cap on the number of square feed of development that can be built on the site. If we think of a pie as being the mass of the entire development FAR allows the developer to cut the pie into different size pieces to meet the needs of the market, he cannot change the size of the pie. To be successful the developer must deliver what the market wants and FAR provides the best tool for housing variety. FAR is a proven concept that is used worldwide including the City of Bend as a regulatory too which allows jurisdictions to regulate full building mass for better control of the overall development environment. FAR has a long track record of being successful. FAR does not increase residential density. In a detailed study SilverStar provided both the SROA and Deschutes County Planning density as measured by 22 dwelling units/acre and a FAR ratio of 1.0 will generate almost exactly the same number of residents or guests. There is no downside to using FAR as it is only one of the many components of the many development restrictions that will protect the interests of the Sunriver community. I urge you to support the FAR text amendment. Thank you. Doug Seator 30 Oregon Loop Sunriver 6/9/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jodi F [skyearthcatdog@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:40 AM To: Board Cc: infosroa@srowners.org; srscene@srownerrs.org; asowa@bendbuiletin.com; info@savesunriver.org Subject: FAR Zoning of Sunriver Dear Deschutes County Board Members, I am a Sunriver property owner. I am against this new FAR zoning that the mall developers are trying to acquire. It would allow more units per acre and require only 150 sq ft of retail space per unit. This would decrease the retail down way below 85,000 sq ft. This is already lower than the current retail space. The push for FAR zoning just proves the fact that the developers are only interested in making a quick buck with as many units/ people/ cars crammed into the middle of Sunriver as possible. Also, it hightlights the fact that a thriving retail area is not a priority for them but a smokescreen for overbuilding and overcrowding the Sunriver Mall, its resources and recreational areas. Please vote against the FAR zoning and stick with the rules that have been in place for 40 years in Sunriver. I believe there is a good reason the rules were put in place, they protect Sunriver from this kind of money-grubbing assault. thank you, Jodi Fechner, Sunriver Owner 1 Page 1 of 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: David Hansen [drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:28 AM To: Mike Daly Cc: 'Richard Hansen'; 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; 'J Holland'; Tammy Melton; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Commissioner Daly: Thank you for your reply. The meeting at Sunriver, your previous email to me relating a lack of opposition and your current position are the reasons I believe that your opinion as to the level of opposition may be clouded. In Sunriver each "property" not each person, has one vote. The level of "support" at the well attended meeting in Sunriver, as indeed with some of the presenters could be reduced by half as "properties" were represented by couples, not votes. Currently, less than ten percent of property owners live permanently in Sunriver. That means that mid week, evening public meetings in Sunriver most probably won't yield accurate representation of the feelings of the community at large and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from appearances. In fact, if your representation to me in the previous email is what you intend to use as a base to decide this issue, you ignore the opposition level in the 114 pages of testimony on the record and opt instead for the few presenters allowed at the last Sunriver meeting to guide your opinion of the "real" pulse of the community. Even at the Planning Commission meeting earlier this year, it was made part of the public record that the County had received "equal" numbers of testimony for and against this proposal. I realize that public sentiment and testimony are only part of the equation in the County decision process. But it is my hope that for what ever weight is assigned to that factor, you will apply a well reasoned, accurate, analysis that reflect the actual conditions in the community not appearances or volume levels. Thank you for your time, Dave Hansen 8 Hickory Sunriver From: Mike Daly[ma ilto: Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or. us] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 2:18 PM To: David Hansen Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 David, At the public hearing in Sun River, the room was full of people and lots of people testified. All were in favor of the development and I believe only 1 or two persons testified against. There will be much for opportunity for persons to testify as this moves forward. Thank you for your interest and letting me know how you feel. Also your comments will be placed in the public record. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:05 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; 'Richard Hansen' 6/9/2008 Page 2 of 3 Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner Daly: After reviewing every one of 114 pages of testimony received by the Commission for the period of April 21, 2008 to May 27, 2008, 1 believe that you must now agree that your impression as of April 28th with "very few against" is inconsistent with the public record. There is substantial opposition from the Sunriver community and if I may point out, the opposition letters are detailed and well reasoned and in general of concern for the whole community. Most letters of support on the other hand appear to be self oriented or emotional in nature. I do not believe that a high density developer who paid too much for a property should receive County authorization to enrich himself and forever change a successful community for the purpose of attempting to resolve our mall issue. Thank you, Dave Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver From: Mike Daly[mailto:Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:30 PM To: David Hansen Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 David & Marsha, Thank you for your email. We have received hundreds of emails from Sun River Residents in favor of this proposal, and very few against. The overriding issue is the existing mall is no longer viable, and needs to be improved. I am willing to listen to the public testimony coming up soon before I make my decision. I think it will be a very well attended public hearing. See you there. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:07 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; dickhansen@comcast.net; John Hansen Subject: FW: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner Daly: We are writing again today to request that the Commission DENY the request of Silverstar L.L.C. to rezone Sunriver commercial area to a Town Center District to include high density residential use. We know that you are aware of the many legitimate questions that have been raised through previous testimony, possible conflict of interest with a planning commission member, possible voting irregularity at the planning commission level, Sunriver Owners Association representing only half of its membership, not to mention that the proposal goes against the very founding intention of Sunriver to include a 75-80 foot high building in a community designed to blend in with its forested setting. Sunriver has provided perhaps an incalculable benefit to Deschutes County during its history by being the jewel it still is. We note with interest in the voters pamphlet just received that you are known for being the Commissioner who stands up for the little guy. If ever a case existed that required a champion to level the playing field, it is this one. If you believe as you stated in the voters pamphlet that you were elected to represent the citizens interests, please help us stand up against a developer who is willing to change forever a landmark of Deschutes County for the sole purpose of selling condos for the benefit of a very few. Respectfully submitted, 6/9/700R Page 3 of 3 David and Marsha Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver, Oregon 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 12:35 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: FAR Analysis Thanks Terri. I did realize that my reference to the SilverStar testimony on average residential size, 1,100/sf, was from the November 2007, not 2006 meeting as my footnote states. It just seems like we have been going over this for that long! Thanks, Don Hutchison Subject: RE: FAR Analysis Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:07:45 -0700 From: Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us To: dmbhutch@msn.com Interesting. This will be added to the record. Thanks! Terri Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-1404 Fax (541) 385-1764 terrip@co.deschutes.or.us From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:41 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne; Board Subject: FAR Analysis Terri, I have attached a FAR vs. Residences/Acre density analysis similar to the one that Mark Smuland has presented for SilverStar. It uses similar assumptions but has what we believe to be more realistic residence sizes (based upon SilverStar testimony as well as comparable condominium complexes both in Sunriver and Deschutes County). It also has a view, Option B, based upon the Deschutes County Planning Commission residences/acre factor that was part of their condition for approval of the initial text amendment (I took the 500 units for 26.5 acres and calculated the residences/acre amount as Commissioner Kelly Smith did at the January hearing). The final option presented, Option C, shows the comparison with current Text Amendment language incorporated into the calculation for the Net Sellable Residential Area (the two previous options used the calculations as presented by Mark but are not in-line with current text language regarding the treatment of parking and the minimum commercial space). The items that are most notable are that in every case the allowed residential under the FAR 6/9/2008 Page 2 of 2 measurement, based on a 1.0 amount, is greater - and in most cases over 20% greater - than that allowed under a units/acre measure. That includes not only actual residences but also the residential square footage amounts. This is in keeping with what SilverStar's, and now also the SROA's, consultant Dave Leland has stated both before the Board of County Commissioners and the SROA Board. That he thought SilverStar should have more, not fewer, units than allowed by the 22 units/acre measure. This is in spite of the Deschutes County Planning Commissions official conditions and stated concerns over the density at 22 units/acre being too high. This was also after the Sunriver special election that showed that over 1,400 owners were concerned with the previous allowed 22 units/acre - when they voted to defeat the sle of SROA owned land to SilverStar for inclusion in the Town Center District. The new FAR measure is clearly a way for SilverStar to achieve their goal of more residences and it should be considered in that light. Additionally the new text language calls for only 150 square feet of commercial space for each residence. In reviewing the FAR Analysis worksheets from both Mark and myself you can easily see that this can create a significant reduction in commercial space from even the minimum of 85,000 square feet that the Planning Commission thought was insufficient and to correct it they added a condition of a minimum of 120,000 square feet. The new Text Amendment language goes in the opposite direction. Thank you for your review and consideration of the impacts of the new Text Amendment language. Sincerely, Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane Sunriver & Salem, Oregon 6/9/2008 FW: FAR Zoning of Sunriver Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bill Starks [bstarks@chamberscable.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:08 AM To: skyearthcatdog@yahoo.com Cc: Wayne Thomas; Tom Ped; Karen Pitner; Herb Dix; Doris Brannan; Dennis Wood; Cheryl Fellers; Dave Finney; Board; Bill Peck; Marti Croal; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Fw: FAR Zoning of Sunriver I think your math is backwards. More units require more retail space, not less as you have stated. Bill Starks Original Message From: Marti Croal To: Dennis Wood ; Doris Brannan ; Wayne & Linda Thomas ; Karen Pitner ; Bill Starks ; Tom Ped ; Herbert Dix ; Cheryl Fellers ; Dave Finney Cc: Bill Peck Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:53 AM Subject: FW: FAR Zoning of Sunriver Forwarded to SROA BOD and Bill Peck. Marti Forwarded Message From: Jodi F <skyearthcatdog@@yahoo.com> Reply -To: <skyearthcatdogOyahoo.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:39:48 -0700 (PDT) To: <board@co.deschutes.or.us> Cc: <infosroa@srowners.orq>, <srscene@ srownerrs.org>, <asowa@bendbulletin.com>, <info@ savesunriver.orq> Subject: FAR Zoning of Sunriver Dear Deschutes County Board Members, I am a Sunriver property owner. I am against this new FAR zoning that the mall developers are trying to acquire. It would allow more units per acre and require only 150 sq ft of retail space per unit. This would decrease the retail down way below 85,000 sq ft. This is already lower than the current retail space. The push for FAR zoning just proves the fact that the developers are only interested in making a quick buck with as many units/ people/ cars crammed into the middle of Sunriver as possible. Also, it hightlights the fact that a thriving retail area is not a priority for them but a smokescreen for overbuilding and overcrowding the Sunriver Mall, its resources and recreational areas. Please vote against the FAR zoning and stick with the rules that have been in place for 40 years in Sunriver. I believe there is a good reason the rules were put in place, they protect Sunriver from this kind of money-grubbing assault. thank you, Jodi Fechner, Sunriver Owner End of Forwarded Message tS/9/9nnR Page 1 of 4 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:24 PM To: David Hansen; Mike Daly Cc: 'Richard Hansen'; 'J Holland'; Tammy Melton; Terri Hansen Payne; Board Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Commissioner Daly, I wanted to echo Mr. Hansen's concern about how the sentiment of the Sunriver community is with respect to this proposal. It is something that the Planning Commission struggled with, even at the hearing where they voted Planning Commissioner Pace stated that she wished they could wait until after the land sale vote so they could better know the communities support for this proposal. We are now in that better position that Commissioner Pace had wished for - we know that the community is very much split on the sweeping changes the Text Amendment allows for. That the new hearings are being used as a barometer of approval for a proposal that has already had hundreds of letters submitted related to it as well as dozens and dozens of citizens giving public testimony that has been deemed by staff to be split seems unfounded. That there does need to be testimony taken related to the new Text Amendment language, such as FAR and the Commercial square footage requirements, I absolutely agree with. That testimony related to whether the mall needs to be updated, a fact that we do not dispute, should be irrelevant (and I can't help but point out that almost everyone speaking in support of this proposal at the first hearing in Sunriver had never given public testimony at any of the previous Planning Commission hearings - which may be why they brought up very old issues). My big concern is that as the hearings have been moved to Wednesday's at 10:OOam there is even less opportunity for owners, the majority of whom do not reside full-time within Deschutes County, to provide testimony. And as your e-mail suggests you are looking to this testimony as the gauge for public sentiment within all of Sunriver this is an enormous shortcoming. I urge you to look to the public testimony already submitted and to the documented vote results as your proof of a split within the community. Then look at the new Text Amendment language, which allows more residential and less commercial, and ask yourself if this is truly reflective of what the citizens of Sunriver have voiced over the past nearly year of proceedings. It would have seemed more logical that the latest changes to the Text Amendment would have shown some recognition of the widespread opinions and very real concerns of Sunriver citizens by trying to accommodate some of the voiced concerns and reducing residential space, building heights, and guaranteeing a meaningful amount of commercial space (that is why this whole thing is being discussed to begin with). We ask that you represent all of us in challenging the applicants as to how their latest Text Amendment changes are address the concerns and desires of Sunriver residents as well as those issues that the Deschutes County Planning Commission raised in their deliberations (all of the key issues that the Planning Commission voted to include as conditions for their approval have been dropped -and in the case of residential density and commercial space minimums have gone exactly opposite of what was expressed). What has changed that makes this good public policy now vs. when the Planning Commission initially voted to deny this application? One last item, you mention to Mr. Hansen that only "1 or two persons testified against" the proposal at the Sunriver hearing. For the record the following Sunriver Owners gave public testimony against the Text Amendment at the April 30, 2008 public hearing held in Sunriver: Harvey Barragar Larry Weber Harvey Osborne Larry Reed Susan Kried Joe Upton Bruce Bischof Don Hutchison (that's me) That is at least 8 people and I may have missed some others. But even if you counted everyone there they represented a small fraction of the individuals who participated in the special election ballot where over 3,000 owners voted (representing well over 6,000 citizens). This is besides the fact that there was nothing to actually officially testify about as the "final" Text Amendment language had not been submitted by the applicant. 6/9/0.00R Page 2 of 4 We do greatly appreciate your time and consideration on this very contentious issue that is of such vital importance to the future of Sunriver and Deschutes County. Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane, Sunriver & Salem From: drhansen56@yahoo.com To: Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or.us CC: dickhansen@comcast.net; dmbhutch@msn.com; tekoa53@hotmail.com; Tammy_Baney@co.deschutes.or.us; Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:27:35 -0700 Commissioner Daly: Thank you for your reply. The meeting at Sunriver, your previous email to me relating a lack of opposition and your current position are the reasons I believe that your opinion as to the level of opposition may be clouded. In Sunriver each "property" not each person, has one vote. The level of "support" at the well attended meeting in Sunriver, as indeed with some of the presenters could be reduced by half as "properties" were represented by couples, not votes. Currently, Tess than ten percent of property owners live permanently in Sunriver. That means that mid week, evening public meetings in Sunriver most probably won't yield accurate representation of the feelings of the community at large and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from appearances. In fact, if your representation to me in the previous email is what you intend to use as a base to decide this issue, you ignore the opposition level in the 114 pages of testimony on the record and opt instead for the few presenters allowed at the last Sunriver meeting to guide your opinion of the "real" pulse of the community. Even at the Planning Commission meeting earlier this year, it was made part of the public record that the County had received "equal" numbers of testimony for and against this proposal. I realize that public sentiment and testimony are only part of the equation in the County decision process. But it is my hope that for what ever weight is assigned to that factor, you will apply a well reasoned, accurate, analysis that reflect the actual conditions in the community not appearances or volume levels. Thank you for your time, Dave Hansen 8 Hickory Sunriver From: Mike Daly [mailto:Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 2:18 PM To: David Hansen Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 David, At the public hearing in Sun River, the room was full of people and lots of people testified. All were in favor of the development and I believe only 1 or two persons testified against. There will be much for opportunity for persons to testify as this moves forward. Thank you for your interest and letting me know how you feel. Also your comments will be placed in the public record. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 6/9/2008 Page 3 of 4 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:05 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; 'Richard Hansen' Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner Daly: After reviewing every one of 114 pages of testimony received by the Commission for the period of April 21, 2008 to May 27, 2008, I believe that you must now agree that your impression as of April 28th with "very few against" is inconsistent with the public record. There is substantial opposition from the Sunriver community and if I may point out, the opposition letters are detailed and well reasoned and in general of concern for the whole community. Most letters of support on the other hand appear to be self oriented or emotional in nature. I do not believe that a high density developer who paid too much for a property should receive County authorization to enrich himself and forever change a successful community for the purpose of attempting to resolve our mall issue. Thank you, Dave Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver From: Mike Daly [mailto:Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:30 PM To: David Hansen Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 David & Marsha, Thank you for your email. We have received hundreds of emails from Sun River Residents in favor of this proposal, and very few against. The overriding issue is the existing mall is no longer viable, and needs to be improved. I am willing to listen to the public testimony coming up soon before I make my decision. I think it will be a very well attended public hearing. See you there. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:07 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: Don & Marcey Hutchison'; dickhansen@comcast.net; John Hansen Subject: FW: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner Daly: We are writing again today to request that the Commission DENY the request of Silverstar L.L.C. to rezone Sunriver commercial area to a Town Center District to include high density residential use. We know that you are aware of the many legitimate questions that have been raised through previous testimony, possible conflict of interest with a planning commission member, possible voting irregularity at the planning commission level, Sunriver Owners Association representing only half of its membership, not to mention that the proposal goes against the very founding intention of Sunriver to include a 75-80 foot high building in a community designed to blend in with its forested setting. Sunriver has provided perhaps an incalculable benefit to Deschutes 6/9/2008 Page 4 of 4 County during its history by being the jewel it still is. We note with interest in the voters pamphlet just received that you are known for being the Commissioner who stands up for the little guy. If ever a case existed that required a champion to level the playing field, it is this one. If you believe as you stated in the voters pamphlet that you were elected to represent the citizens interests, please help us stand up against a developer who is willing to change forever a landmark of Deschutes County for the sole purpose of selling condos for the benefit of a very few. Respectfully submitted, David and Marsha Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver, Oregon 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 4 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:06 PM To: David Hansen; Mike Daly Cc: 'Richard Hansen'; 'J Holland'; Tammy Melton; Terri Hansen Payne; Board Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Commissioner Daly, I need to correct an error on my previous e-mail regarding the opposition speakers at the April 30, 2008 public hearing held in Sunriver. Bruce Bischoff did not testify in opposition to the proposal, my notes were in error. Don Hutchison From: dmbhutch@msn.com To: drhansen56@yahoo.com; mike_daly@co.deschutes.or.us CC: dickhansen@comcast.net; tekoa53@hotmail.com; tammy_baney@co.deschutes.or.us; terri_payne@co.deschutes.or.us; board@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:24:08 -0700 Commissioner Daly, I wanted to echo Mr. Hansen's concern about how the sentiment of the Sunriver community is with respect to this proposal. It is something that the Planning Commission struggled with, even at the hearing where they voted Planning Commissioner Pace stated that she wished they could wait until after the land sale vote so they could better know the communities support for this proposal. We are now in that better position that Commissioner Pace had wished for - we know that the community is very much split on the sweeping changes the Text Amendment allows for. That the new hearings are being used as a barometer of approval for a proposal that has already had hundreds of letters submitted related to it as well as dozens and dozens of citizens giving public testimony that has been deemed by staff to be split seems unfounded. That there does need to be testimony taken related to the new Text Amendment language, such as FAR and the Commercial square footage requirements, I absolutely agree with. That testimony related to whether the mall needs to be updated, a fact that we do not dispute, should be irrelevant (and I can't help but point out that almost everyone speaking in support of this proposal at the first hearing in Sunriver had never given public testimony at any of the previous Planning Commission hearings - which may be why they brought up very old issues). My big concern is that as the hearings have been moved to Wednesday's at 10:OOam there is even less opportunity for owners, the majority of whom do not reside full-time within Deschutes County, to provide testimony. And as your e-mail suggests you are looking to this testimony as the gauge for public sentiment within all of Sunriver this is an enormous shortcoming. I urge you to look to the public testimony already submitted and to the documented vote results as your proof of a split within the community. Then look at the new Text Amendment language, which allows more residential and less commercial, and ask yourself if this is truly reflective of what the citizens of Sunriver have voiced over the past nearly year of proceedings. It would have seemed more logical that the latest changes to the Text Amendment would have shown some recognition of the widespread opinions and very real concerns of Sunriver citizens by trying to accommodate some of the voiced concerns and reducing residential space, building heights, and guaranteeing a meaningful amount of commercial space (that is why this whole thing is being discussed to begin with). We ask that you represent all of us in challenging the applicants as to how their latest Text Amendment changes are address the concerns and desires of Sunriver residents as well as those issues that the Deschutes County Planning Commission raised in their deliberations (all of the key issues that the Planning Commission voted to include as 6/9/2008 Page 2 of 4 conditions for their approval have been dropped -and in the case of residential density and commercial space minimums have gone exactly opposite of what was expressed). What has changed that makes this good public policy now vs. when the Planning Commission initially voted to deny this application? One last item, you mention to Mr. Hansen that only "1 or two persons testified against" the proposal at the Sunriver hearing. For the record the following Sunriver Owners gave public testimony against the Text Amendment at the April 30, 2008 public hearing held in Sunriver: Harvey Barragar Larry Weber Harvey Osborne Larry Reed Susan Kried Joe Upton Bruce Bischof Don Hutchison (that's me) That is at least 8 people and I may have missed some others. But even if you counted everyone there they represented a small fraction of the individuals who participated in the special election ballot where over 3,000 owners voted (representing well over 6,000 citizens). This is besides the fact that there was nothing to actually officially testify about as the "final" Text Amendment language had not been submitted by the applicant. We do greatly appreciate your time and consideration on this very contentious issue that is of such vital importance to the future of Sunriver and Deschutes County. Don Hutchison 7 Fox Lane, Sunriver & Salem From: drhansen56@yahoo.com To: Mike_Daly@co.deschutes.or.us CC: dickhansen@comcast.net; dmbhutch@msn.com; tekoa53@hotmail.com; Tammy_Baney@co.deschutes.or.us; Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:27:35 -0700 Commissioner Daly: Thank you for your reply. The meeting at Sunriver, your previous email to me relating a lack of opposition and your current position are the reasons I believe that your opinion as to the level of opposition may be clouded. In Sunriver each "property" not each person, has one vote. The level of "support" at the well attended meeting in Sunriver, as indeed with some of the presenters could be reduced by half as "properties" were represented by couples, not votes. Currently, less than ten percent of property owners live permanently in Sunriver. That means that mid week, evening public meetings in Sunriver most probably won't yield accurate representation of the feelings of the community at large and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from appearances. In fact, if your representation to me in the previous email is what you intend to use as a base to decide this issue, you ignore the opposition level in the 114 pages of testimony on the record and opt instead for the few presenters allowed at the last Sunriver meeting to guide your opinion of the "real" pulse of the community. Even at the Planning Commission meeting earlier this year, it was made part of the public record that the County had received "equal" numbers of testimony for and against this proposal. I realize that public sentiment and testimony are only part of the equation in the County decision process. But it is my hope that for what ever weight is assigned to that factor, you will apply a well reasoned, accurate, analysis that reflect the actual conditions in the community not appearances or volume levels. Thank you for your time, Dave Hansen 8 Hickory /9/7(10R Sunriver From: Mike Daly [ma ilto: Mike_Da ly@co.desch utes.or. us] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 2:18 PM To: David Hansen Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 David, At the public hearing in Sun River, the room was full of people and lots of people testified. All were in favor of the development and I believe only 1 or two persons testified against. There will be much for opportunity for persons to testify as this moves forward. Thank you for your interest and letting me know how you feel. Also your comments will be placed in the public record. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:05 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; 'Richard Hansen' Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner Daly: After reviewing every one of 114 pages of testimony received by the Commission for the period of April 21, 2008 to May 27, 2008, I believe that you must now agree that your impression as of April 28th with "very few against" is inconsistent with the public record. There is substantial opposition from the Sunriver community and if I may point out, the opposition letters are detailed and well reasoned and in general of concern for the whole community. Most letters of support on the other hand appear to be self oriented or emotional in nature. I do not believe that a high density developer who paid too much for a property should receive County authorization to enrich himself and forever change a successful community for the purpose of attempting to resolve our mall issue. Thank you, Dave Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver From: Mike Daly [ma ilto: M ike_Da ly@co.deschutes.or. us] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:30 PM To: David Hansen Subject: RE: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 David & Marsha, Thank you for your email. We have received hundreds of emaiis from Sun River Residents in favor of this proposal, and very few against. The overriding issue is the existing mall is no longer viable, and needs to be improved. I am willing to listen to the public testimony coming up soon before I make my decision. I think it will be a very well attended public hearing. See you there. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 6/9/2008 Page 3 of 4 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: David Hansen [mailto:drhansen56@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:07 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: 'Don & Marcey Hutchison'; dickhansen@comcast.net; John Hansen Subject: FW: TA-07-6,PA-07-6 Dear Commissioner Daly: We are writing again today to request that the Commission DENY the request of Silverstar L.L.C. to rezone Sunriver commercial area to a Town Center District to include high density residential use. We know that you are aware of the many legitimate questions that have been raised through previous testimony, possible conflict of interest with a planning commission member, possible voting irregularity at the planning commission level, Sunriver Owners Association representing only half of its membership, not to mention that the proposal goes against the very founding intention of Sunriver to include a 75-80 foot high building in a community designed to blend in with its forested setting. Sunriver has provided perhaps an incalculable benefit to Deschutes County during its history by being the jewel it still is. We note with interest in the voters pamphlet just received that you are known for being the Commissioner who stands up for the little guy. If ever a case existed that required a champion to level the playing field, it is this one. If you believe as you stated in the voters pamphlet that you were elected to represent the citizens interests, please help us stand up against a developer who is willing to change forever a landmark of Deschutes County for the sole purpose of selling condos for the benefit of a very few. Respectfully submitted, David and Marsha Hansen 8 Hickory Lane Sunriver, Oregon 6/9/2008 Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Edward LAVERY [odanuki-san@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:27 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mali development Please do not allow SilverStar to use the Sunriver "common" areas as part of their calculation for open space. Homeowners are not allowed to do this - they should not be allowed. Edward 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bob Fike [Bob.Fike@pacpaperinc.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:36 PM To: Board Subject: FAR Please be aware that I am in favor of and support the latest version of the Town Center District zone language. I hope you will support this latest version. Robert Fike 5 Whistler Sun River, OR 6/160nn8 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Ken Mucha P.C. [ken@rgsold.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:45 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SilverStar's application to create a Town Center District in Sunriver. I highly endorse and approve of the changes to the Town Center text amendment. The opposition has been proven to be in the minority no matter how much they e-mail or how loud they want to be. In fact, my concern is that due to our Sunriver HOA legal department having to defend themselves against lawsuits without merit from the opposition we will be forced to have out HOA dues increased. The majority of the home owners are in favor of this happening ASAP. Property owner of #2 Killdeer Lane. Thanks, Ken Mucha CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The above communication may contain confidential information which is intended only for the individual or entity named. If the recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, the recipient is prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying or distributing the information and please immediately notify the sender that the communication was transmitted in error, and please delete this e-mail transmission without printing or otherwise copying it. Thank you. A/13/7008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Ralph Curran [r.curran1@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:26 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver mall proposal I am an owner of a home in Sunriver. Our house is located at 20 Hickory Lane. This note is to voice our support for SilverStar's application to create a Town Center District in Sunriver. 6/11/?nnR Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jerry Fullman [jerfullman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:35 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Town center district zone change We have a vacation home in Sunriver at #6 Pro Staff Lane and fully support the changes necessary to make an upgrade or rebuild of the town center a reality. We are embarrassed by the rundown , out of date center and are fully in support of the plans we have seen for a redesign of the center with housing as a important addition to the plan. We cannot attend the upcoming meetings, but you may consider this e-mail as a vote for our support. Jerry and Edna Fullman 6/130008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: John T Weisel [jtweisel@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 5:35 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Town Center Plan for Sunriver We have been 19 year residents of Sunriver, and have watched the Village Mall area deteriorate. It is so bad we don't even go there any more. We strongly support the SR Owners Board and the Town Center District. We are unable to attend the 18 June meeting. Sun River's viability is of economic importance to Deschutes County. If this proposal is not approved all of our real estate and home values stand to drop. Please support this proposal so we can get on with a viable development in our Village area, and restore the interest in our community. Waiting for another plan is not an option. We strongly support the Town Center Plan and Silver Star Destinations as the developer. Thank you. John T Weisel, 24 Tan Oak Lane jtweisel@teleport.com jtweisel@charter.net jtweisel@mac.com Sunriver, Oregon 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bill Reynolds [bd.reynolds@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:12 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Town Center District zone language As a Sunriver homeowner, I am writing to support and approve the latest version of the Town Center District zone language. Regards, William Reynolds 12 Sparks Lane, Sunriver 6/16/700R Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: MjoanMyers@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:58 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SILVER STAR TO EACH OF YOU, I HAVE WRITTEN OTHER LETTERS SUPPORTING THE MALL IN SUNRIVER, BUT NOW I WISH TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE LATEST VERSION OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRIC TZONE LANGUAGE. I WOULD LOVE TO BE THERE SO THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR SUNRIVER , I COULD SHOW MY SUPPORT IN PERSON, BUT I HAVE A 10 AM APPOINTMENT AT BMC. I HAVE BEEN A FULL TIME RESIDENT IN SUNRIVER SINCE 1973. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE ON THIS WORK. MARILYN MYERS 5938333 p.o.BOX 3126 SUNRIVER, OREGON 97707 Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008. 6/160nn8 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bob Carson [bcarson@masonbruce.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:13 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Please support SilverStar's proposal to use FAR for the Village at Sunriver Dear Commissioners, I am a Deschutes County resident in the Sunriver area. I implore you to support the current proposal by SilverStar to use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Village at Sunriver. FAR is a proven tool for use in similar developments across the country. By supporting this proposal you will increase the developer's flexibility and help to ensure the success of the Village at Sunriver, while still requiring appropriate protections and assurances for the community. Thank you. - Bob Carson ************************************************** 56585 Nest Pine Drive Bend, OR 97707 541-593-1323 ************************************************** 6/16/2008 Sunriver zoning plan language Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Barry Rubenstein [brubenstein@wlrlaw.com] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:06 AM To: Board Subject: Sunriver zoning plan language I strongly support the proposed language. Barry Rubenstein Watkinson Laird Rubenstein Baldwin & Burgess, P.C. PO Box 10567 Eugene, OR 97440 (541) 484-2277 PHONE (541) 484-2282 FAX www.wlrlaw.com 6/16/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Ralph Young [ralung@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 10:19 AM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne; Cheryl Young Subject: Support for Sunriver Town Center District zone language We fully support the subject changes. Please approve them. We are homewoners in Sunriver. Thank you, Ralph & Cheryl Young #25 Eaglewood 541-598-8536 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Kay Rusk Hull [kayruskhull@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 2:18 PM To: Board Subject: Silverstar Plan for Sunriver Town Center I cannot attend your meeting on this subject but I do support the latest verson of the Town Center District zone language. Kay Rusk Hull Property Owner 32 Kinglet Sunriver 503 241-3730 6/16/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jeff and Britt Weiler [weiler4300@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Village My wife and I are owners of a home in Sunriver and enjoy vacationing here with family and friends. We are in total support of the zoning change in the Sunriver Town Center District. It is obvious that the mall needs to be redeveloped and updated. Please approve the changes so that the redevelopment can begin. The mall needs to be redeveloped and this seems like the opportunity we have had to get this accomplished. I am confident the board representing us as homeowners (The Sunriver Owners Association) will make sure the design and development proposed by Silverstar is up to the quality standard and design consistent with Sunriver. Please accept this e-mail as one more homeowner in support of the redevelopment and zoning changes that need to be approved to accomplish this. Jeff Weiler Owner 12 Mt. Hood Lane - Sunriver, OR 97707 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jane and Steve Croley [jscroley@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 2:48 PM To: Board Subject: YES please approve the most recent proposal and the use of FAR in your consideration of the Sunriver Town Center. We have listened and watched for years as our village has deteriated and the fear of losing this opportunity for improvement will cause a blight on the whole Central Oregon community. Thank you Jane Croley 6/16/7008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Cheri Tabaka [CTabaka@4nsp.com] Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:09 PM Board Town Center District High PLEASE approve the Town Center District plan! The Village is dying a terrible death. We never go there anymore. So many stores are closed! We MUST do something to renovate the Village and bring new life to the area! I can't be at the meetings, but I wanted to make my voice heard. Thank you! Cheri Tabaka, Owner 5 Cinder Lane 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jim Harnish [theharnishes@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 4:27 PM To: Board Subject: Sunriver Mall I am unable to attend the next meeting, but please know that I am in full support of Silverstar and what they are doing to improve our Sunriver Mall. Danna Harnish 2 Muir lane Sunriver, OR 61160008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Boyd Iverson [boydiverson@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 4:52 PM To: Board Subject: Commercial development in Sun River Oregon To the Deschutes County Commissioners: To whom it may concern. I have submitted previous written testimony in the past. I am an out of town owner so I am not able to make any of the scheduled meetings. But I would once again like to say that I "strongly support" the latest version of the Town Center District zone which is currently being proposed by Silver Star Development for the SunRiver Downtown area. The core area of SunRiver has been dying for several years due to lack of tenants, design, and people. Silver Star has proposed a great development which will benefit the people in SunRiver as well as Deschutes County. Please vote in favor of this new language as it imperative to make this project work Also just to verify my position. I have no financial interest in Silver Star Development and have no financial gain from any approval of this project. It is just something that needs to be accomplished and one out of state owner, who happens to seemingly be an "ego centric" attorney, and enjoys litigation just for the sake of litigation, has the cost the Sunriver Owners enough time and money. I urge you to vote yes and let Silver Star proceed with their project. Sincerely, Boyd Iverson 1872 Willamette St. Eugene, Or. 97401 541-686-8275 boydiverson(a�hotmail.com 6/17/2008 I have owned lot 3 Thrush Lane for about 20 years. Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: S BRANDVOLD [sandybms@msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 5:12 PM To: Board Subject: FAR - SunRiver Resort We are part-time residents at 31 McNary Lane in SunRiver. We purchased here to enjoy the Village amenities that would keep us from always having to drive into Bend. With the Mall in such disrepair we find we are almost exclusively (and regretfully) doing our shopping in Bend. We would much rather support our local shopkeepers and not have to leave our community. We starting vacationing here well over twenty years ago and couldn't wait to purchase a home here. While it used to be a highlight to show our visitors around SunRiver we now avoid going to the Mall out of embarrassment. It is to the point that we question our investment and have grave concerns for the community altogether. With all the updated Resorts recently built we feel SunRiver has lost its appeal. Please work with Silverstar to bring a plan to fruition that will benefit occasional visitors, part-time residents and full-time residents as well. This has always been a Resort and as such needs amenities to keep visitors coming. At the same time, the plan needs to be beneficial to the developers or why should they proceed? We feel fortunate to have a substantial developer interested in revitalizing SunRiver when the real estate market is so very slow. We will be unable to attend the June 25th Commissioner's Meeting which is why we are sending in our letter. Tom and Sandy Brandvold 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Sent: To: Judy Dials [sundials@chamberscable.com] Monday, June 16, 2008 8:14 PM Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FAR plan We are unable to attend the upcoming Wed. change to the text amendments. Thankyou. 6/17/2008 June 26th meeting, please know that We are insupport of the FAR proposal and LeeRoy and Judy Dials 18160 Cottonwood #773 Sunriver, OR 97707 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Clare [forward8484@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:25 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Fw: Sunriver Town Village zoning ---- Original Message From: Clare To: board@co.deschutes.or.us Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: Sunriver Town Village zoning We as homeowners at 15 Virginia Rail in Sunriver strongly urge you to vote to approve the new zoning for the Sunriver Town Village. We feel it is tremendously important to help keep the Sunriver experience at the highest level. Thank you for your consideration. Bob, Clare, Robin and Frank Forward 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Iarayne924@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:30 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver proposal support We are unable to attend the meeting regarding the FAR proposal. We would like to go on record that we support the FAR proposal and change to the text amendments. We think it will be a nice addition to Sunriver. We are permanent residents. Sincerely, Calvin & LaRayne Hutchins Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more! 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Randy Egertson [egertson@chamberscable.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:55 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Silverstar Mall We are unable to attend the June 25th meeting to consider the FAR proposal and test amendments for the Silverstar Town Center proposal. We are in favor of these changes and the approval of the Town Center concept for the Sunriver Mall redevelopment. This redevelopment is vital to the long term health of Sunriver as a prime destination resort. Maintenance of the values of Sunriver properties also hinge on this redevelopment. Please allow the proposed changes. Randy & Diane Egertson 12 Alpine Lane Sunriver 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Teresa Bowerman [tbowerman@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:25 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FAR proposal I will be unable to attend the meeting regarding the proposed FAR plan for the Sunriver Village Mall. I would like to be on record in support of the FAR proposal and change to the text amendments. Thank you. Teresa Bowerman 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Katie Hall [katieh@chamberscable.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:07 AM To: Board; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Mall Redevelpment 1 have been a homeowner iw sunri.ver for 8 dears and have lived here full time for almost 3 uears. support the FAR Plan for the mall. It gives silverstar the -fl.exibilitj it needs to build condo units that will sell. I I2now fou have spent countless hours on this issue. Please consider approving the FFR plan to help improve the odds o f a successful redevelopment of our village. Thav R. fou Katie Hall 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bob Ulery [uleryb@hasson.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:12 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Support For The Proposed Town Center District text amendment - Sunriver Village Dear Board Members: This email is to express my strong support for the proposed text amendment. These changes should position the developers and the County to successfully manage their way through to a commercially viable new village in Sunriver. I own the home at 57237 Puma Lane about 1/2 miles north of the present village. As such I am deeply concerned that we get a new village developed along the lines of what has been done at other major ski/golf resort areas in the western US. The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) approach to managing density in lieu of the present 22 units/acre is a solid idea. While there appear to be those who oppose any type of development that would increase the traffic and/or more people coming to Sunriver, I hope the Deschutes County Commissioners will recognize there will always be those who oppose change of any kind. I judge this development, which needs your approval of the proposed text amendment to proceed, will dramatically enhance Sunriver's livability and add a significant property tax revenue stream to the County once it is complete. I hope you will vote to approve the proposed text amendment and the other changes that go with it. Sincerely, Bob Ulery Owner: 57237 Puma Lane, Sunriver, OR Property Tax Account Number: 136687 uleryb@hasson.com 6/17/2008 A Letter Supporting the Town Center Zoning for Sunriver June 17, 2008 Deschutes County Commissioners Bend, Oregon Sirs: It may appear to be an oxymoron, but urban renewal is a must for our Deschutes County resort community. I reside in Sunriver. For our limited commercial area to be effectively revitalized under existing conditions, it requires approval of the revised Town Center District zone amendment proposed to you. Acceptance of the proposal opens the door for a renewal that our commercial center desperately needs. Passage of the proposed changes will allow for reconstruction of the village mall to a standard that is consistent with the long - held values of the Sunriver community. Approval of SilverStar's Town Center text amendment, based on the floor area ratio (FAR), will enable these developers to show a profit in their investment without undermining the ideals which have drawn my family to Sunriver since the `seventies. We have so loved the community for so long that we became Sunriver homeowners four years ago. Only by allowing the developers to secure adequate revenue from redevelopment of the rapidly deteriorating mall buildings can we stem the increasing blight that's showing up daily in the heart of our beloved community. I am particularly excited about the proposal to construct shopkeeper apartments in the village area. I further value additional condominiums and/or hotel accommodations in the area so that the project is financial viable. It is truly more exciting to go to the mall when I can be assured that I am likely to be among a critical mass of fellow shoppers and sightseers. And that will happen as these localized residents — part-time and full-time, as well as seasonal visitors — shop the stores and attend activities in the town center core area. I urge the Deschutes County Commissioners to approve the revised Town Center District zone text. Sincerely, Gary A. Knox 6 Alberello Sunriver, Oregon Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jim Bergmann [jimnjo@chamberscable.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:47 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Village Redevelopment We will be away from the area on June 25 and unable to attend the hearing. However, we urge you to promptly approve the proposed text amendments with the FAR guideline in lieu of the units per acre guideline. It is unfortunate that the FAR was not in the initial proposal; it is far superior to the units per acre guideline. It not only provides the develolper with greater flexibility, that flexibility will make it possible to have a number of smaller units which can be permanent residences for elderly who love and do not want to leave Sunriver, but are not able or williing to keep up large homes. A small studio or one bedroom unit in the redeveloped Village, with groceries, restaurants and perhaps even a medical office within convenient walking distance would be an incredibly beneficial asset in the community. The FAR would permit this to be possible. We have been Sunriver owners since 1969 and became permanent residents in 1991. We have remarked for years that Sunriver is a wonderful place to live - until you no longer can drive. Commuting to Bend without your own car is overwhellming. The potential of an integrated residential and commercial Village that can be developed with flexibilty to meet market demand assures both the developer and the community of the best result. It is a WIN-WIN! Please approve the text amendments as quickly as possible so the project can proceed. Jim & Joanne Bergmann 4 Lava Butte Lane 593-8384 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Beve/Jack Kiekel [bjkiekel@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:31 PM To: Board Cc: Terri Hansen Payne To: The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners My husband and I want to express our support for FAR and for the text amendment to Silver Star's Town Center development proposal. We appreciate your time and energy given to working this through, and do hope for your approval. Thank you, Jack and Beverlene Kiekel Sunriver homeowners. 6/18/2008