The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAspen Lakes - Burden of ProofsAiT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT L A W Mill View Way Building, 549 SW Mill View Way, Suite 100, Bend, OR 977021 Phone 541.749.40441 Fax 541.330.11531 www.schwabe.com TIA M. LEWIS Direct Line: 541-749-4048 E -Mail: tiewis@schwabe.com April 24, 2008 BY HAND DELIVERY Deschutes County Planning Commission c/o Peter Gutowsky Principal Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: TA -07-1; Aspen Lakes Text Amendment Applicant's Final Argument Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to submit final argument in the above referenced matter. As a procedural matter, the Applicant submitted a petition signed by 79 neighbors in support of the Text Amendment prior to the close of the record on April 17, 2008. It appears the petition was not received so it is included herewith together with the email dated April 17, 2008 and the time of sending highlighted as 4:36 pm. This petition was timely submitted before the evidentiary deadline and we respectfully request it be accepted into the record. The following sets forth the Applicant's response to the comment letters submitted into the record and to the issues raised at the public hearing. For efficiency, the Applicant has organized the comments into subjects rather than responding to each individual letter or question. 1. Scope of Proposal: Much testimony and many questions have focused on whether Aspen Lakes should be a destination resort and the idea that the proposed text amendment somehow authorizes Aspen Lakes to convert to a destination resort. Any property which is mapped with the DR overlay and contains 160 acres can apply for a conceptual master plan (CMP) for DR approval. The proposed text amendment neither authorizes nor approves such an application. The application process exists today independent of the proposed text amendment. The proposed text amendment simply Portland, OR 503.222.9981 1 Salem, OR 503.540.4262 1 Bend, OR 541.749.4044 Seattle, WA 206.622.1711 1 Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 1 Washington, DC 202.488.4302 PDX/ 1 1 3903/ 143843/TM L2 555150.1 Deschutes County Planning Commission April 24, 2008 Page 2 extends the same flexibility to existing cluster developments as is given to existing destination resorts when making the CMP application. In other words, Aspen Lakes can apply for a CMP today, with or without the proposed text amendment. While it would have to seek a variance to certain DR development standards because of existing development, it can apply and process an application just the same as any other 160 -acre property with a DR overlay. The proposed text amendment addresses three issues: a) lot size for existing development b) setbacks for existing development c) timing for providing resort facilities The proposal is narrowly framed so that it applies only to existing development in cluster subdivisions approved prior to February 7, 19921 which include an 18 hole golf course and dining facilities. It does not authorize a CMP application. It does not authorize construction of overnight accommodations. It does not authorize an increase in density. It does not address wildlife mitigation, open space preservation or any of the other stringent standards applicable to DR approval. It simply extends the same exceptions for existing development in cluster subdivisions as is currently available to existing development in resorts approved under the old resort standards. 2. Precedent: Many people have expressed concern over the proposed text amendment as somehow opening the door to wholesale conversion of existing cluster subdivisions to destination resorts. The proposal will not have that effect. To make an application for a DR, an existing cluster development would have to have a DR overlay, be 160 acres and obtain the consent of the property owners. These requirements exist today with or without the proposed text amendment. It is unlikely there are any cluster developments in Deschutes County, other than Aspen Lakes, which would be able to obtain the consent of the owners. The text amendment further narrows the likelihood that any other cluster development would apply by limiting its applicability to cluster subdivisions developed before 1992 which have an 18 -hole golf course and dining facilities. 3. Statutory Overnight Requirements: Staff and DLCD have argued that the text amendment should not be approved because Aspen Lakes cannot meet the requirements of providing the requisite overnight lodging prior to the sale of lots. We disagree. The present proposal does not purport to seek approval for a destination resort at Aspen Lakes. That process exists through a conditional use application for a CMP. The question of whether Aspen Lakes can meet CMP standards is irrelevant to the present text amendment process. The 1992 date was chosen because it is the year the DR requirements for lot size and setbacks changed, which necessitated the need for the present exceptions. PDX/113903/ 143843/TM 02555150.1 Deschutes County Planning Commission April 24, 2008 Page 3 Nevertheless, the statutory provisions do not preclude Aspen Lakes from complying. The statute provides as follows: 197.445 Destination resort criteria; phase-in requirements; annual accounting. A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor -oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a proposed development must meet the following standards: (4)(b) On lands in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805: (B) At Least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. (Emphasis added). The statute specifically refers to "proposed" development, not existing development. The County has the ability to impose conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with DR standards, a tool LUBA has called a "powerful decision-making tool." Gould v. Deschutes County, 54 Or. LUBA 205, 213 fn. 7 (2007). In the present case, the County can condition construction of the required overnight lodging prior to any development of the expansion area — the area of proposed development. Neither the statute nor the County Code precludes such a condition. The text amendment is consistent with the County's decision to place the DR overlay on the subject property with the existing development in place. As a part of the DR mapping process, the County identified lands and characteristics that it would exclude from DR mapping. Existing development was not a characteristic the County identified as precluding the DR overlay. Thus, the question of whether an existing development can apply for a destination resort has already been answered in the affirmative and the present text amendment does not change that. The question of whether an existing development can meet the approval criteria is completely different and answered only through a CMP application process. 4. Disclosure of DR Plans. (a) Past Disclosure Many opponents claim they were not told of the plans to develop Aspen Lakes as a DR. The Applicant submitted both the Open Space Management Plan and the CC&Rs into the record to demonstrate that the plan to develop Aspen Lakes as a DR has been a part of public, recorded documents since as early as 1993. There is simply no validity to the claim that this plan was some "well kept secret." The evidence shows that it was not. P DX/113903/143843/TM U2555150.1 Deschutes County Planning Commission April 24, 2008 Page 4 (b) Present Disclosure The present text amendment process is yet another example of the Applicant's forthright disclosure of its plans for the resort. The Applicant could have engaged in a series of land use applications to get overnight accommodations approved first under the guise of a bed and breakfast, dude ranch, or other permitted uses and then applied for the CMP to avoid the statutory argument related to overnight accommodations. Likewise, the Applicant could have applied for a CMP on the undeveloped EFU/DR land south of Golf Course Estates, with a development plan that it never intended to actually build, and then come forward with a proposal to add the existing development in a subsequent phase. Either of these scenarios would avoid the statutory overnight argument and the "no conversion" argument. However, both of processes would not represent the true plans and would result in the waste of County and Applicant time and resources. Furthermore, they would not provide a process where the entire resort proposal is reviewed in one CMP application process. Instead, the Applicant chose to be fully transparent with its ultimate development plans and to seek relief, through the present text amendment process, to two discrete development requirements prior to applying for the CMP. The Applicant also chose not to use the variance process to justify exceptions to those two discrete requirements because the current text extends these exceptions to existing development in resorts and should be equally applicable to existing development in other DR mapped areas. 5. Open Space/Wildlife Habitat The present text amendment has no impact on open space or wildlife habitat. Testimony about whether Aspen Lakes can meet the criteria for a DR,,whether it can use the existing open space platted for Golf Course Estates cluster subdivision approval, whether it can mitigate wildlife impacts or meet any other resort approval criteria is irrelevant to the present text amendment. The details, supporting evidence, argument and conditions for ultimate resort approval will be addressed through a CMP application for resort approval. They do not have a role in the present text amendment. 6. Policy Issues The present text amendment presents a number of policy issues the Planning Commission and ultimately the County Board will need to consider. The proposal is to extend the same exceptions to existing development in certain, older cluster subdivisions as exist for existing resorts developed under prior rules. The question of whether to extend these exceptions to cluster development turns on the answer to a number of policy questions, as set forth below: (a) Is there a sufficient public benefit to be derived from declining to extend the same lot size and setback exceptions provided for existing development in destination resorts to existing development in cluster PDX/113903/ 143843/TMU2555150.1 Peter Gutowsky April 24, 2008 Page 5 subdivisions mapped with the DR overlay to merit unequal treatment of lands mapped for DR development? (b) Does the County want to facilitate resort development in an already developed area or reserve it for vacant, undeveloped lands? (c) Does the County recognize the value of allowing flexibility in resort development to encourage local developers with more limited resources to develop quality projects over time? (d) Does the County want to limit its exposure and work load managing bonds for recreational amenities by allowing existing development flexibility to meet resort requirements? (e) Does the County recognize the value of providing tourism opportunities and lodging to an area with a demonstrated need and established track record of quality development? While the present text amendment does not approve a DR for Aspen Lakes, or provide a process for DR approval for Aspen Lakes, it does provide relief to two code requirements for existing developed areas. It provides the same treatment extended to other DR mapped areas. The above policy considerations play a part in the decision to approve the text amendment. For all of the reasons previously cited and discussed, we ask that the County do so. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. TML:pia Enclosure svegv PDX/ 113903/ 143843/TM U2555150.1 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mill View Way Building, 549 SW Mill View Way, Suite 100, Bend, OR 977021 Phone 541.749.4044 1 Fax 541.330.11531 www.schwabe.com TLA M. LEWIS Direct Line: 541-749-4048 E -Mail: tlewis@schwabe.com March 26, 2008 Peter Gutowsky Principal Planner Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: TA -07-7 Response to March 18, 2008 Staff Report and January 8, 2008 Memorandum Dear Peter: As you know, our office represents the Cyrus family on the Aspen Lakes project and the above -referenced text amendment application. We are writing to respond to your March 18, 2008 Staff Report and any remaining issues from your January 18, 2008 Memorandum. 1. Scope of Text Amendment. Section 18.113.025 of the Destination Resort (DR) Chapter for the Deschutes County Code (DCC) currently authorizes existing developments approved as resorts prior to the new DR standards to expand and include the existing developed areas in the DR application under the standards set forth therein. For example, under 18.113.025B, existing development in the resort is specifically exempted from compliance with setbacks and lot sizes. The Applicant's proposed text amendment would extend these same exceptions to existing development in a cluster subdivision. The proposed text amendment is narrowly framed to address three issues: ■ Lot size for existing development in a cluster subdivision • Setbacks for existing development in a cluster subdivision • Timing for providing resort facilities The above exceptions are necessary for existing developed areas wishing to expand or become a destination resort because those developments were developed under standards which have changed with the adoption of the new DR standards. The proposed text amendment simply Portland, OR 503.222.9981 1 Salem, OR 503.540.4262 1 Bend, OR 541.749.4044 Seattle, WA 206.622.1711 1 Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 1 Washington, bC 202.488.4302 PDX/ 113903/ 143 8437TM L/2452822.1 Peter Gutowsky March 26, 2008 Page 2 extends the same exceptions to existing development in cluster subdivisions as are currently available for existing development in resorts approved under old standards. The proposed text does not "provide a process for" (March 18, 2008 Staff Report, pg.l, Section II) or authorize the conversion of a cluster subdivision. It simply extends the same lot size and set back exceptions to cluster subdivisions as were extended to resorts developed prior to the new DR standards. The process for and determination whether a cluster subdivision can. become a DR and meet the stringent DR requirements would occur in -a land use application made for that purpose (ie. a CMP application and/or modification of approval). This process exists today and the text amendment does not authorize it or otherwise approve it. Likewise, the text amendment does not enable the Applicant "to build overnight' accommodations" (March 18, 2008 Staff Report, pg.1, Section II). It simply provides provisions for the timing of construction of resort facilities in an expansion area. Again, the process for approval and authority to construct overnights would occur through a land use application for a destination resort. Finally, the proposed text was drafted specifically to address the ability of a cluster subdivision which already has most of the resort amenities (ie. a golf course and clubhouse) to apply for a destination resort approval. It was not intended to open the door to wholesale conversion of rural subdivisions to destination resorts. Based on conversations with Staff and County legal counsel, the Applicant is willing to further narrow the proposed text to apply to only those cluster subdivisions which include, at a minimum, an 18 -hole golf course and dining facilities. The revised proposed text is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Response to Staff Report dated March 18, 2008. The Staff Report is separated into 8 sections. Set forth below is our response to specific sections in the order of the Staff Report. A. Section II — Text Amendment. The Staff Report indicates the proposed text amendment contains the following elements (each element from the Staff Report is summarized below, followed by the Applicant's response): a. Provides a process for Aspen Lakes to convertthecluster development to a destination resort Applicant's Response: As discussed above, the proposed text does not provide a process for Aspen Lakes or any other cluster subdivision to convert to a destination resort. The process for such a conversion would be through a land use application for a CMP demonstrating the existing and proposed development can meet the applicable criteria for a destination resort. The proposed text amendment simply extends the same exemptions for existing development from compliance with destination resort lot size and set back requirements as are currently provided for the expansion of resorts developed under standards that predate the current DR requirements. PDX/ 113903/143843/TM 02452822.1 9*, Peter Gutowsky March 26, 2008 Page 3 b. Allows Aspen Lakes to count existing residential units as a component of a destination resort Applicant's Response: The Applicant agrees that the proposed text would allow exceptions to lot sizes and setbacks for a cluster subdivision to count the existing development as a component of the destination resort in a separate and subsequent land use application for DR approval. The existing development includes not only the residential units but also the open space, the golf course, and other developed areas. c. Enables Aspen Lakes to build overnight accommodations Applicant's Response: The proposed text does not enable or otherwise authorize Aspen Lakes to build overnight accommodations. Again, the process for and authority to construct any component of a destination resort would be through a land use process wherein the Applicant demonstrates it can meet the criteria for approval of a destination resort. d. Creates preferential treatment for a cluster development over independent destination resorts by "grandfathering" existing development Applicant's Response: The proposed text creates the same treatment for existing development in cluster subdivisions as is currently available for existing development in resorts approved prior. to the new DR standards. It does not "grandfather" existing development. It simply exempts it from compliance with two (lot sizes and setbacks) of the hundreds of DR standards and imposes a requirement to assure that other required elements of a destination resort development, such as recreational facilities and lodging, are provided before other development occurs in an expansion area. e. Allows cluster developments to address wildlife mitigation after the ground has been disturbed by existing development Applicant's Response: The text amendment does not change wildlife mitigation requirements. The Applicant will need to meet the same wildlife mitigation requirements that apply to all destination resorts. Establishes a destination resort with overall densities higher than a resort on bare ground because existing lot sizes and densities are grandfathered; and Applicant's Response: The proposed text amendment does not address density for a destination resort. In the case of Aspen Lakes, the approval of the text amendment will not allow density to exceed the maximum density limit imposed by the destination resort law. Further, the lot sizes in Aspen Lakes are larger than the maximum size of lots allowed in destination resorts — a factor that would lower, rather than increase density. The text amendment extends the same exceptions to lot sizes and setbacks for existing development only as is currently provided to existing development in destination resorts approved prior to the current DR standards. The P DX/ 1 1 3903/ 143843/TM U2452822. l swv Peter Gutowsky March 26, 2008 Page 4 density requirement in 18.113.060 F is not modified by the proposed text amendment and continues to apply to any land use application for approval of a destination resort. g. Makes destination resort expansion possible. Applicant's Response: The Applicant is uncertain of Staff's intent for this bullet point. Destination resort expansion is already possible through an appropriate land use action. In fact, Eagle Crest has availed itself of this process several times. The present text amendment speaks only to lot sizes and setbacks for existing development in cluster subdivisions which wish to apply for a destination resort approval. B. Section V — Legal Issues. Section V of the Staff Report discusses legal issues and can be broken down into three components: conversion, phasing and overnight accommodation requirements. The Applicant will address each component separately below. a. Conversion: The Staff Report assumes that the proposed text amendment somehow authorizes Aspen Lakes or other cluster subdivisions to convert to destination resorts. The text amendment is narrow and the sole purpose is to extend the same exceptions to existing development in cluster subdivisions as is currently available for existing development in resorts developed prior to the current DR standards. Cluster subdivisions wishing to receive approval as a destination resort would need to file a land use application demonstrating compliance with the standards for approval of a destination resort. The Staff Report specifically states: "Nothing in the statutes talks about converting existing subdivisions into destination resorts." (March 18, 2008 Staff Report, pg. 2, Section V). The Applicant agrees with this statement. It is equally true that nothing in the statutes talks about expansion of resorts developed under standards that were vastly different from the current standards. However, Section 18.113.025 of the County's code specifically speaks to the application of the current DR standards to expansion of existing resorts. The proposed text extends those provisions to existing development in cluster subdivisions. There is nothing in the state statutes that prevents the County from providing the current exceptions in 18.113.025 for existing resorts or from adopting the proposed amendments for existing cluster subdivisions. In fact, if state law had been intended to preclude conversion of existing developments into destination resorts, the requirements of ORS 197.445 would specifically prohibit mapping of developed areas. State law typically establishes the base -level, regulatory standards and lists what is not permitted rather than listing all permitted uses. Neither the state nor the County's destination resort requirements preclude approval of existing development as a resort provided it meets the applicable criteria. The text amendment was proposed to provide some relief for specific challenges faced by existing developments. The County has the legal ability to implement such text changes. There is nothing in state statutes prohibiting such a text amendment. b. Phasing. The Staff Report indicates that current DR standards require a destination resort to provide certain resort amenities in the first phase. The Applicant agrees that this is an accurate recitation of the standards. The Staff Report indicates that Aspen Lakes PDX/113903/ 143843/TML12452822.1 Peter Gutowsky March 26, 2008 Page 5 cannot meet the standards because of the existing development. The proposed text amendment does not, however, address this issue and this issue is not relevant to the present proposal. Additionally, the applicant believes that its property can meet destination resort requirements. The application process for demonstrating compliance with the destination resort criteria is through a land use application requesting destination resort approval. The present text amendment simply makes exceptions for existing development for two discreet standards: lot sizes and setbacks. C. Overnight Lodging Requirements: Recent amendments to state law require that at least 50 units of overnight lodging be constructed prior to the sale of individual lots or units in a destination resort. Specifically, ORS 197.445(4)(b), which is codified in DCC at 18.113.060A, provides as follows: 197.445 Destination resort criteria; phase-in requirements; annual accounting. A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor -oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a proposed development must meet the following standards: ********** (4)(b) On lands in Eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805: * * * * * * * * * * (B) At least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. (Emphasis added). The Staff Report and the letter from DLCD indicate that Aspen Lakes cannot meet the above requirements because the cluster subdivision contains existing lots which have already been sold. The last sentence of the proposed text amendment speaks to this by providing the following language: "When new facilities are required to bring existing development into compliance with current destination resort law, those facilities shall be provided, or where allowed, financially assured, prior to any other development in an expansion area." The Applicant does not dispute that Staff and DLCD's reading of the statute is one way to interpret it. However, the Applicant disagrees with Staff and DLCD that it is the only way to interpret it or that the statutory language somehow precludes the proposed text.' The statutory language ' Significantly, to construe the statute as narrowly as Staff and LCDC suggest would preclude not only cluster subdivisions from applying for destination resort approval but would also preclude expansion of existing resorts which were developed prior to the 50 overnight requirement which have sold lots and have lodging bonded but not PDX/113903/ 143843/TMU2452822.1 Peter Gutowsky March 26, 2008 Page 6 speaks specifically to "the proposed development" and requires the 50 units of lodging to be constructed prior to the sale of individual lots or units in that development. In the case of Aspen Lakes (or in the case of a resort expansion), the existing development, including individual lots or units, was approved under different standards and consist of legally created lots under a prior land use application. A destination resort would not exist (and therefore those lots would not be a part of it) until all conditions of the DR approval are met. Thus, construction of the 50 units can and should be a condition of approval and the proposed text requires that they be constructed prior to any development of the expansion area other than the development of overnight lodging (including individual lots or units). In this way, the proposed text is actually more stringent than the statutory requirements by requiring the 50 units to be constructed before any other development, not just before the sale of individual lots and units. The proposed text is not inconsistent with the state statute and the County has the authority to adopt code to implement and further refine the statutory provisions so long as the County code is not contrary to the express statutory language. CASE CITE Furthermore, the proposed text which makes it possible to apply for a destination resort when there is existing development is consistent with the express policy of the destination resort statutes to promote tourism as a valuable segment of the economy, to provide year round destination resort accommodations and to facilitate the siting of destination resorts. See ORS 197.040.2 Theredevelopment of existing residential developments into destination resorts furthers the aims of Goal 3 and 4. This in turn helps preserve large blocks of resource lands for resource uses and concentrates development in areas where it already exists. Lastly, the case of Gould v. Deschutes County, 54 Or LUBA 205 (2007) does not preclude the proposed text. While the case does discuss the statutory provisions requiring the construction of 50 overnight units prior to the sale of individual lots in a resort, it does not contain any findings or legal conclusions which would prevent the proposed text amendment or which would prevent an interpretation of that statutory requirement to be met through a condition of approval. The case involved an application for a destination resort on vacant land and did not involve any existing development. It, therefore, is not on point with the facts of the present situation. The decision does, however, provide persuasive authority for the Applicant's position that the statutory provision can be met through a condition of the CMP approval requiring the 50 units to be constructed prior to any other development in an expansion area. In Gould, LUBA explained the destination resort process as detailed in the County code at DCC 18.113. It is a three step process consisting of an initial application for a Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) which is processed as a conditional use permit, followed by a second application for approval of a Final Master Plan (FMP), with the third step being approval of individual components or phases of the resort through site plan and/or subdivision approval. constructed. The County code specifically provides provisions for these existing resorts to expand and meet current requirements (DCC 1$.113.025) so this interpretation would preclude approval under those code provisions. 2 At the hearing, the Applicant will submit testimony and evidence of the tourists served by the existing facilities at Aspen Lakes and the need for overnight accommodations to continue to attract and serve tourists to Deschutes County. PDX/ 113903/ 143843/TM 02452822.1 Peter Gutowsky March 26, 2008 Page 7 Gould, 54 Or LUBA at 209. LUBA goes on to explain that the CMP is the framework for ensuring the proposal meets the applicable standards and criteria and specifically finds that these standards can be met through the imposition of conditions of approval. Id. at 209-210. See also, DCC 18.113.075. In fact, LUBA recognized that the authority to impose conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with the DR standards is a potentially "powerful decision-making tool" for the County. Id. at 213, fn. 7. This tool can be used by the County to assure that cluster developments comply with the overnight lodging requirements of State law before they can proceed with additional resort development. 3. Conclusion. Based on the evidence in the record and the arguments herein, the Applicant has demonstrated the value of the proposed text amendment and the legal authority of the County to adopt it. For these reasons, the Applicant requests approval of the proposed text attached as Exhibit A. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Tia M. Lewis TML:pia PDX/ 113903/ 143843/TM1J2452822.1 REVISED PROPOSED TEXT FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE: 18.113.025. Application to existing resorts and cluster subdivisions. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts or proposals to convert subdivisions or portions thereof platted as a cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 and which include at a minimum, an 18 -hole golf course and dining facilities, hereinafter "cluster subdivision", shall meet the following criteria: A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development or cluster subdivision and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing destination resort developments, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that will be integral to the remainder of the resort. When new facilities are required to bring existing developments into compliance with current destination resort law, those facilities shall provided, or where allowed, financially assured, prior to any other development in an expansion area. EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 1 Text Amendment TA -07-7 Background The Cyrus family homsteaded in Central Oregon in the 1880's. Since that time we have been actively involved in agriculture as well as a multitude of community activities. In the 1970's, the property adjacent to our farm was platted as Wildhorse Plains. It, along with its sister subdivision, Wildhorse Meadows, were platted as large -lot "sage brush" subdivisions that would have been made up of cinder roads, over head power and very little in the line of protective covenants. Out of concern for what was being planned next to our farm, we looked at options as to how this platted subdivision could be upgraded. We concluded that the best use of the property was a destination resort; but because Deschutes County had not yet adopted its Resort rules or done its mapping, this avenue was difficult at best. After consulting with county planners, it was decided that the best option would be to obtain approvals for the golf course amenity, then a cluster subdivision. Once the improvements were in place, we could then convert the development to a resort and complete the project. In 1987, we obtained an option on the property that included both subdivisions for a total of 1,084 acres and proceeded through the approval process. It should be noted that our original conceptual plans depicted re -developing the northern, section 35 (Wildhorse Meadows) property first, with the section 1 (Wildhorse Plains) parcel to be developed later. It was after the initial approvals, that we decided that it made more sense because of the highway exposure to re- develop the southern section 1 property first. Once the cluster subdivision approval was obtained, we applied for and received a partial re -plat of the Wildhorse Meadows subdivision in order to carve out The Rim at Aspen Lakes. This was platted as a stand alone subdivision with its own open space so as not to impact the Wildhorse Meadows lots that were left intact. In fact, the remaining Wildhorse Meadows lots were the last to be vacated, and converted to open space to meet the open space ratio needs of the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes, some years later. Once the Rim lots were platted, we platted Phase I of the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes. The CC&R's included language that put any potential buyer on notice that it is our intent to convert the development to a Destination Resort and that by purchasing their lot, they consent to the conversion. Even our later open space management plan for the open space in section 35 contains language anticipating a conversion to resort for that property. In fact, in 1991 we secured all of the water permits that would be needed for the eventual development of the land in the open space area now being proposed for resort. In 1992, the county adopted its resort rules which included a map of all of the land eligible for Destination Resorts. Our property was included in that map and there were no objections from any neighbors or other concerned parties even though they had full opportunity at that time. Current Facilities Over the past 10 years we have developed 115 homesites, a championship 18 -hole golf course, a homeowner recreation facility, complete with exercise room, pool, and tennis court, and a lodge with dining space to accommodate our numerous tournaments. The Aspen Lakes golf course has been recognized as one of the top courses in the northwest. In 2000, Golf Digest ranked us 8th best new affordable course in the nation. Brainstorm Northwest Magazine has since ranked it the number two Best Golf Experience in Oregon and Southwest Washington. In 2007, we had just over 28,000 people play our course. Of these, 77%, or 21,560 people were from outside the Central Oregon area. The Aspen Lakes Golf Course has been a great draw to the Sisters area, but play seems to be limited by available lodging. We have observed measurable drops in rounds played during major events such as Quilt show and the motor coach rally. We have just recently been invited to submit a proposal to the USGA as a possible host site for the 2011 US Amateur Public Links Tournament. One of the biggest impediments to hosting such a prestigious tournament is the lack of lodging in the immediate Sisters area. This tournament alone requires 220 rooms for a week. Economic Impacts Through the years, we have been good neighbors and good for the community. Our fire hydrants allowed the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District to challenge the ISO rating district wide and drop from an ISO rating of eight to a six. This rating change alone resulted in an approximately 20% - 30% drop in insurance rates for every member of the district. In addition, the $40 million in added value to date has resulted in an approximately $40,000 increase in the fire department budget and approximately $200,000 to support schools. Preliminary estimates are that the development of a resort will result in a build -out value of an additional $450 million. This would result in an increased tax revenue for the Sisters School District of roughly $2,250,000 and another $450,000 for the Cloverdale Fire Department. This is in addition to county tax and room tax. In 2007, Aspen Lakes had a staff of roughly 60, both full time and seasonal positions and an annual payroll of just over $940,000. These numbers are expected to double with the opening of the new Brand 33 restaurant. The conversion to a destination resort would increase these numbers significantly. Donations / Contributions When the course first opened in 1997, we donated it for the Outlaw Open. Over the years, this annual tournament has raised nearly $400,000 to support a host of school programs ranging from football to the jazz band. Over the last couple of years, we have donated a portion of each lot sale to the Sisters School Foundation for capital improvements. These funds were recently used toward the replacement of the antiquated irrigation system at the elementary school. We have donated tens of thousands of dollars worth of golf to literally hundreds of charities and organizations. The Sisters golf team uses the facility at no charge. We have donated the use of golf cars for numerous Sisters events, including Chamber of Commerce, Sisters Folk Festival, Cycle Oregon, and the High School Equestrian State Meet. We have donated equipment for use on the Sisters School grounds as well as equipment to help build Sisters Trails. The water we donate to an in -stream lease is ear marked for use by the Sisters Schools at no charge. According to the 2008 Central Oregon Visitors Association survey of Central Oregon golf courses, we give nearly twice as much to charities as the average Central Oregon course. We have offered our meadow property along the creek to Wolf Tree for their student environmental education programs as well as to ODFW for Steelhead reintroduction. Of the 200,000 steelhead fry that were recently re -introduced into the creek, 40,000 of them were released on our property. Community Involvement We have been active in the community as well. My father, Keith Cyrus is currently Vice Chairman of the Deschutes County Planning Commission. He helped form the Cloverdale Fire Department in 1963 and served as a volunteer for many years and is now Chairman of the board of directors. He served 10 years on the Oregon Potato Commission, was a founding board member of Water for Life, and served as chairman of the irrigation district board, Farm Bureau board, as well as various other boards and committees. My mother, Connie, has been a volunteer with the Cloverdale Fire Department, taught in the Sisters school district, served many years as a 4-H.leader, and is currently on the Sisters Chamber of Commerce marketing committee. My sister, Pam, is in her 23rd year as a leader of the Cloverdale Livestock 4-H club and was named as one of the 40 under 40 business leaders in Central Oregon by the Cascade Business News as well as volunteering in the Sisters schools. My brother, Grant, is currently serving on the Sisters Chamber of Commerce board of directors, is Treasurer of the Oregon Golf Course Owners Association, as well as serving on the Sisters Kiwanis board of Directors. I currently serve as president of the Deschutes County Farm Bureau, Committee Chairman for Cub Scout Pack 139, am past president of Water for Life, and have been a volunteer on the Cloverdale Fire Department for 26 years where I serve as a Lieutenant and vice president of the association. My wife, Kelly, is a regular volunteer at school, past board member of the Little Cloverdale Pre-school, and is currently Treasurer for the Cubscout Pack. My parents, Keith and Connie, still own and operate a 1,000 acre farm in the community and my wife, Kelly, and our family own and operate the farm my grandfather bought in the 1930's. We have continued to move forward toward our goal of developing a destination resort on this property for nearly 20 years. We feel we have been good neighbors and good for the community during that time and ask for your support in allowing us to finish what we started. Continued from C1 "There is 'an indication that Mentals are ;slowing," Lee. said, aril the slowdown seemed to Start in February . The .length of stays has started to drop in the last 30.days,iLee',said :and the number of 4)e01e booking .rentals far ahead of ,time has decreased as well He said he hopes that SunHver Resort will see an increase in reservations made loser tothe vacation date, which could make up for the loss of early bookings. J. Greg Mindt, president of the Oregon Lodging Associa- tion, said he expects that 2008 occupancy rates will remain flat, with no increases from 2007. John Fettig, president of Sun - river Realty, said resort home sales have slowed over the last 1year. "If you compare today versus a year ago, our market is slow - ,a er,,":Fettigsaid. "We still have a good flow of folks who are looking," Fettig said. "We have some people who are waiting." • ~-:Matt Wilson, a broker for Sun - river Realty, said he has noticed that new homes in the resorts sell better Phan resale homes. Jin; Peterson, president of the resortconsulting frrtn Peterson Economics based m Anacortes Wash`. said hebeheves destina tion resorts arre experiencing a Short-term slowdown.: Peterson has worked on economic fea stbility studies for several des- tination resorts in Central Or egoniincluding Brasada'12anch;' Caldera Springs, Black Butte Ranch, Pronghorn and Thorn° burgh resortS. The Central- Oregon resort market got ahead of itself in 2005, Peterson said, and now the pendulum has swung" the other way, and the market's re- ally dried up " Peterson said he thought re- sort home prices and "buyer euphoria" both ran high in 2005, and although he said the slow- down is a "short-term trend," it could take from one to five years for the market to recover. Peterson updates his sales information in Central Oregon and other resort markets every three months. "Almost everywhere we're working, developers in projects have been holding prices very steady but because of that, their sales are very lethargic." Lee said the wealth of second home buyers has helped to insu late resort home;sales, from the effects 'of the Igerietal. housing marketslowdown. "Out here, there are some sec and homeowners',' so there are a Irttledeeperpockets Lee said of 'Sunnvei. About half the netts ut`her'e are second homes." o change seen or long-term plans Deschutes County senior planner Terri Hansen Payne • said none of the destina- tion resorts in the county has changed its conceptual or final master plans. Paul Blikstad, a senior planner with the coun- ty, said Pronghorn has several homes under construction. Tetherow has recorded three subdivision final plats,` which allows the resort to sell lots, said Senior Planner Anthony Raguine. Bill Zelenka, planning ;di- rector for Crook County, said he also has not received any amendments to resort master plans that would change the number of homes or overnight Erik l antler, executive di- rector t Central Oregon Land- *. °atch a land; use watchdog or- ganization in Bend, said a short- term slowdown in demand for ' .resort homes ,will not change future development plans. ;:But 'Kander said he thinks other faettirs, such as' the system de velopment charges under con- -Sideration by Deschutes County, could combine with a market slowdown to create a more sub- 4tantial challenge for destina- tion resorts., "If you're looking at the near- term market, it probably:. won't deter resorts from developing," Kancler said. "But if you start looking at all these things to- gether, then maybe it starts to add up." Peterson; said projects still =in the planning stages ' such as ThornburghResort,'have a' "bright, long-term" future, but existing resorts face challeng- ing times. "Resort :real "estate markets are always cyclical," Peterson said. "The demand comes and -goes, and you have to look at the long-term averages." units. Zelenka said Brasada Hillary Borrud can be Ranch has about 27 homes that reached at 617-7829 or at are built or under construction. hborrud@bendbulletin.com. :61 AYMARCH .24 2008 THE.BULLET[N • : • • Lt "Ittff.prtickeicenet4/f. 4:n9'1:v4:ld hire itty.14 Creek -'0411YPP OlikreVrt 7/(4 on collr.. pnptuausti r eveni an qgure on ho t Aprivy ****41440V, dnghtnoww.T11 La Pittilfidditdat Group, .14114aogt econoniy.' • wnflthnu • s • • . - ' itsitOt creek ophIcljti4 ‘i,-sifoartfil ja4141egrtt50.- *Pig ° e ..% " lavirs''' illUdiPOtat.100: '0 at_ qn 1Y„ fitT t" b thabitettcg- *ATOM -0, 1' itdedard:th*dge t.i.tli :rt:4. crescent ,..,..,.,;. :..: „ ..„.. — tepii-ie, ,-:,----.6e oper 0,4-1“ff Hoy Co.X.-..-- ., 0:„.. 41r 1/.0'4-rtr ok.$5 1.., k#Mag• ,; A 'Q stirn attract •uthe • ''',001;a28itietigitre7 wr 11:-th.r.;t1451.0 rE .i$ -.i.'14.11. J, , ..'il';',.",,,,-ilo.,,t ,,t4T.t• - ' echtittelhar:Stollar- :'.3 .,',:;;:;..-." f 0.41(.0(n'i •--•--- ' .."... . .. . 0*$,..0..a;fropesed.%00(acre 401-.hiatiOri,i.e.m#11.iiiSt.,..soiii11,iietf Miria..ealled-Crecetit Creek ..... agfe.hhas.eieitedloealteSidents Otti: it .:id11, biifig. new . • and boost the utonomy...•..._... •%:i...4 l',1110,0- 3 a potential , for ' raven e*f0Orts:ureaind:Ba Pine;, as A.'..thOiisaricisof acres repiainteligi; kifOrAe. (±esorts(,)whichaiSUallY ...,-; 144001f,ediirsesppaiiikapt .. '.:::,....40:100.a.-i&Ouriiighi lodging:* .jass than 1 percent ofKraitiatti. ctitOtifSr*i:981‘;69o4.aeto ?,'dotii-i .::.**n.,47,064:*60:1is4bOitteitle4; ...:;" galeti$Y0f: thousands of .acres' „,:.#iiitf$X81e,e1igiPla.•;inAheliortheili.... :a4414.mag-i:cgtiptyiR1ali:; 1 ,•J het.:1(ri:10911:4:410:4:10:..'cl:2. liaiittl'Ieptait8liiii: Ofor •BlatifierTerf.i.,Payne 4i,:911414V141-tin....1P4r3m§.9,ilograttly hgibe$or _0 :-atirDastlaltda-"COatitY; 4. aitirOVesi of Highway 97-.: ' 't 1 dF$16 ...q-:....;;i.bPafiecy910 /:*4-oninefin vi'4Algiltiqq00tP,a;::Alefe43i '.4 :- :#10 *ed.& tah"d1: -' ''' ;st,id7 .... i•-•ci "-- - sx!41 .; Le ,..ilp vario .:•4 . .ges.z.o .i.1 develop ....., lli.,,..iii, ' 4.41': OM Rlack Butte Ranch .,.:::•., r-SiSfora ..to....i.ieweitnts ...A dal :1110: Btasada Ranch in Powell. eier' WOO *s@rii bs, - ; et327,acr • tik that'4., La Pine. 1 of otith end of hutes • I, nomy„we're „going .r",/*.:A.,49:: t Td--wn!-regticti ‘at.t0anniei:aiea tigettlend tnplexes are approriate to h)p,:ihre or in Bend several qiitfarlYttgWits.,?hidkile o erd deatifiatidk*Teto - ;$00;',Fla.s0 7 ' 5114.?,,frOanr- ar s . s i „.t,,A„,..;,:,,,,,,,,, A.:. . , ::aihilk,.: .,„,,,-,:y.,...„.,-,-,,,,,,,,,,..,,., Y., il4!:!,,,F,-... ,,,,,. '.-.4 ..* "'‘.. ''":4:119*-07:2T0i .r2-.! ii ':4;., sf .1 '''''''' oreconom lc ,3t6E1•1: :''':if.;.:1';clevelopm.ent._ • ald . : '';21'441.1•i4tii,i, ., --i : ,.. ,.,, : ‘.:;.1,5'...:z.'''':''.1:,'I'l-a-ii'ilE:ie.;::6:eio.` .;;d6/,.:,,ra,:...i.aco,,,,,,__Pin7er.1;eFl.plie,,esItice,:sihdn,:haes6s.„ 3 • 2 _., ,.. . , , ,,,471414itYci...,. '-'61-0,3ast:. .) ,..:!„...m:1!.,:4,,,,,6;.hea,d1..,..: '41,ttoo, :, .,„ . . ' lieg:a.on, Ath,e',..7,0r- ,., iti.401. ':, .46/6.m4tiP,- -,:-, ''''4,45.ggeo . :1,,,,,, : '4..alis-,:**.y.t:):,„;, - ' ,11g.: e,' '`.3,4t.. s 6 S eas 4.41gtikiP.,ee: gRAttgptioti ,z. Tke-eyagatio;k4,guiderthat agencY tan iise to target 'aid for Ac9R3,4,4p,T,loriment, '7" resse , 14 Pim re - 35.71,01f alstre4id":cles- ,,•, .,.....,,,44,041g*IQW four catego- OiAganetoi:the EcOnpinic ',11,14,katnt;.11..1-f, - • pf Sisters' ' dkage5nrhigher had a eep 2000, which. ;,.:3-,...;-:...-A.1.;''',' -",'"-- .:.:..,, ,c,ia:pefled4raaaldyja...,t'ta-07, at are avail- - t1 -1 -1;;61: -at C -o -u---- :,::„.:::,: .f14.;1(4.,...gaet„ewi'o'f'‘..,,.it-ein four areaS: penr,- • .,:,..;,:l.Foalliisk.th‘ecitoiet,i4nr,„ eiiii_e county are . ,•,,,,v,,,...„,. ;.,..nek.ChriSike'dd ..9'• ikeCico, SklUictb ,..._ ...:."3.,,,,.0.,.4.,j,,,4a,,;(te'pzropulationr2withr .;. ligher,lin...eraP16-yrneentrate, per- :, . -0411dIfinAttit'°unee -..,'• Merty and e ,.,,. , ....na_rde,a_kl. eff.therseoilicothunreties :have been ,,, .tentage -Ajf,the'f3opulation below t8 ryei.piSfaTa.rceaaloprwei•tas4thi;nea.aCiPhcr.nrreGeeshk- e yearg,' then a'ge o : , ,....::::..,,_ crica.,.-1),,,e'soeh. Uttebsy.,Cciotynni,tyaf,,?thilelealeatnecs$rt ''-• : . ,cetwnS__',„dat,,a3.6.'51,i,ders' on saia. ." ', , WitifTilhom' tileSehtite's '"''''COtinty, . jeji ,$:)0c,s cepsus for r'r -.•:"..- ,:':!(S14iStit'ii.,1[;a '13 ,e and PeSChuteS ' ' -,. , .ver Woods fell below the an7 , i 3„.,:.;'" Oval average for counties that .:',., -.:•:::', :::,„,.,,,..!!,:,,e.1„,,,,,,ee - dMic,threskold eAch -,'-. , r.- :. a ...t#,),:ii-Ari;l3tv-x,.:::, , ,.•:.•:‘,.:. . .rtilfirVe'rirdiral\lfs"--'''''cl' ala` j.. :::.;,,',): e'aithRtitle`sliiiiatherAiStAith00 s...",f3';'..:gendy's,..intent is to help rural . 2....•,,.i'....„,coutanuties move forward eco- _, r",,:..3;k,,,__Ornically, ,4-iderson sai.d.k „1.,..„ ..,,,,,:,, l''''."'..•/..rt; ..itie§"or:,,e761.6%114 tecelve3,,,, :i.:,,,,•:i!'ii:1 ' 0, ;desigriltibrO al'e llgiblelb01 -.:,-,c"' 0 "PrOvides long7tetrOlfixedqN, , ',,:;E:,:, te financing for businesses hi ... .....,:::,, al and distressed communi- ._, '-.'''.'.'3',''. I; • 0 iiVbfacieg!Aiemotom ,,,.:., If -',46,-,41.64. js diStresseit.:):0y j:c,. ... -'.-:..4s u0Poss i. iDerGekiiiiiiailt. !4'...F:Witi,:114 .,:;:.....,'1':'e,s,noutin,61:,:)itierLio,,:oft.;t,,11.1is:ii,,,,,sti,,,:dfii:::n...t..,c,tier.," ._;„:".';' '':h''' rograms„including the Oregon '.", ii:3',.,:-.":'" hieh is- a revolving Voan fund . '''''-" Ander o said ;.--,-.-, . . , J,,,,, ..".,3 '3'3, t 6 ' OtifitetaklarkiAlaglii.;',4 , .;8':FigsoileferI4f1:11101;404,1,1(6dItiAtirgi;9,..4'1-.P:i' '''::. Additidifs10 ' , Aglia .,i,, • A0e7gka5..i....qgka '''VeS7' s, ,rt ,•,-:, 4; ate i-a-dravocotion, o a "e, :(tti:°*4ta - '°::'°•''',.'61°7.r.:'.4411116.1giii....•*11. '0'601-41i— lkii'',d641 gr4jW;4444,;.• - e4S.ed.'""edifirtifitiltieS..,,-.. . 'IA ' ',.' 'it.4:;"..'4-ti,V**.lh6';dpei'134:illi'''; ,0','Prkri.:,-... - --41,,-. -,,,-.-.7:14 U:t,ccrit.dgipith'0.... ' -'' .4'.:1 ..1i....A',.4:1•Weliikie's 4 ,., , :-.,,,,,,,,,,,'.,.. 5.: ,,,,, f.,,,,,,.,,,,,,.1,,,,,.,,,,,-,rip....v,,„ .. : -tent threstidart Alk Weople are commuting to Bend , becau data Althongkr appear on the,,antfeces it exists _ ' pte4 Areg:a4trket ,i"Theres. of people,;wh, .city's food k alarminv, on getting Pay' liYingit4g4 .:blews that 1,3* ered "severek 6.001:4KVQ _Wiktior1470-4 grrk+S*16Vithe.-. tiergelit, As 'Mart. -.136.-* bitAtAltleppae.feab.e•-• .04testptiKty4 "iiiifiltitE104:rielrcenfof the n'aSt Shr riicirithS3 .24 .i;oebri is :a r. r. 11, aci yh, do( 34. ftn“aoTgtnhehde5e7 "7:;„; io3r ' sit inldete: r(gi eae:ae p12i nie.tte2ve;d:3 b),c: latbc: 8.4 pgrcoeget worse." ; or higher had ''614'641c1- iigoviatian age 25 t Of La Pine's :410-..a01,114 it: 01-6 eafegorteSc'faCCdrdine3: •2 Makin ald edit be •-e• Wednesday.,,Mareh ;PK ,Hugger, wspa_ppr, rs • .W.Pn. 3:1 Byloseph Duerrrneyer ;1'ptrrespondent; 3 Sie strs his received:=thy ''tduhious honor, of havuh- its.ft; name appear on the Oregon=. -Econoiriic 'antCommunity ' Development "-Department's 1(OECDD) list of distressed communities .,The city. is }labeled ` severely distressed a beaten out only by L,.. -1:4c.,-,,,, m for the title •of the .most, dis tressed communi Ce t al t3'.?n .rift.. Oregon. The silver lip�ug tct thef eonomic storri e7<Q dsi is hat the `'severely dhstresse ekigffation has positive,,, rea'tioris 'tor ecbnonu !STRESSED Rating ;1Ves Sisters accessto ant.:assistance Coq inued from page 1 3development n anager for DCO;(Economic Develop- tient for Central: Oregon):, There has always been disagreement in'Sis`ters over ,ey to prosperity ome say 5010 answer hs s a fordable housing 'We don t .need affordable housing here "as:niueh as we really need jobs that will pay enough So that people can afford all ~the empty houses that are for ssale everywhere in the com *unity. We must bring in jobs here that will pay decent -wages for the work force who =lives `here, said Lundgren. +'And economic growth is fiot considered the brass ring jby everyone in Sisters. "1 know there are a lot =;of 'people who are not very excited about seeing Sisters have strong growth and would :rather see things remain as they are," said Strobel. =`EDCO believes that the =lack of industrial space is a key issue' for Sisters. "Until there is leasable space in Sisters that can aceoinmddate startup mann factoring or tecsli..1*. nes-ses; they`=will continue to find Fhomes elsewhere=_That is` the tiggesf• single problem lit Sis ters right now and why some -tie v businesses `have'started =in•ltednfotid or at tlie Sisters ?airport rather than in the town ' saYtl $ttbbel TheSisters Atea Chamber 'of Conuiierce sees theneed •a 'little differently. The (Sisters) Vision state- nient is great but'the biggest >prablem=is •that1We Ihai'e=no S°tategy'to get "from point<A to' Point=l3. Everyone is<o i differei t page'need samehow'to -become inofe unified and develop a ,straf- gy to get to outgoals, said Michael Robillard, president •6f=the Sisters Area'Chainber • of••Commerce. L. - Solutions aze not 'easy to come by =' "Some people want the city to step in Others want thedeveloPers td do tie work. Some want"the chamber to take the burden All those positions are -wrong We need. to do this together%or it w ll not succeed' -`We need to'get on tire same page and develop a unified p1th with ioietotit • onboard, said Robillard: • The! city-coundii:is;aware of a 'need' but its not clear what course might be'best tb �putsue "There .are•not°=a" lot,of good tools for a city'of this size' -to encourage'ecoiiomic development' 'said :mayor• Bral{Boyd. "if we ebtld'fmd some that would make sense and hot'piit ;the existing local businesses ata disadvantage; thewholer council<wo ild 'be on board. " ting communti -By Joseph Duerrrneyer Correspondent • The State of Oregon first formed a methodology . for determining levels of .eco- _ nomic distress during the last decade: Thelaw providing the -authority -to designate com- munities for the distressed list was passedin the late J990s. With -;the passage of Senate Bill:932, the. Oregon legis Mature directed the. Oregon: Econom is and Community Development Department (OECDD) to .give priority for grants and other economic aid to;geographic areas designated: &distressed. • .During the 2007 legislative Asession, this statute was revised r through; Senate. Bill 250 which directed the;OECDD to: ", . focus on Oregonians in coin- munities that are .rural,, -ecu- nonucally distressed ;or :lack 'Averse -employment oppor-- 'itunities:-.: ' The bill. defines. conomically distressed" as county, ,city,: tcommunity or other ;geographic area that:. designated as a distressed =area by the department; based o indicators ,of economic c -00 .4 dislocation, ince not lirruted to unemp poverty and dol s year saw a Om change .in .the inethodolog used fo determinedistressed I.`s_tatus. The new methodology- .uses factors that'provide for a anore accurate determination of the financial healthof a coin- munity or area than was pos- sible with the previous meth- odology. The data now used .in the determination is pro- vided by the.Oregon Employ- ment Department and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The determination of whether or not an incorporated city or sub -city is specifically distressed in anon -distressed .county, like Deschutes, .;is based on four,, factors:. The city or sub-city's;poverty_ rate (the percent of the :population living in poverty); the: cityor sub -city's per capita personal income; the city or sub -city's percent of population aged 25 -plus with college educa- tion; and the city. or sub -city's unemployment rate. Threshold values for ,the; four factors are established, and if the values for three of. these factors aret.worse,_t_han he threshold values, then that community is identified as distressed -:If the values of all four:factors are worse than the threshold values, as is the case with:Sisters, the community is ,considered severely distressed. Sisters weighed in ,on these factors as follows• Sisters ;has a well educated :t otiulation • . •. ."',1!".=1;::;,.i -V • ommunrties :araet.s • eve, opm-ent • By Jeff MODOnaldheUetth sters La Pme and Deschutes ... River Woods wr ie1ed as tate Intnwnty • 4 ed rpon, eomic iiatyst ,itbeT;OP • - 3 •• gg.'g -ent,ibas d faa 1:33,144,,Pa Th-07-6"falUkticiri ii,,a,guidethat the tate agency CanUse to target .f..` aid for econonliRd#elopnient, be said. iS1ssed 1111 p, 04 La pine re- telY distressed des - )1 bemg;below the *.2.4n.all four catego- 400gto.:the Economic o "Ity ..,Development jperCent of Sisters 50r higher had a e$4600pjil 2000 which .sho1avetage e ent rate 11110#'4s, above ..,"-5514Orcent, its • ' • - fell.be- 2,- 1 Ct15,4741)0 income - 104 riereent.of the cent threShOld, data. Ahp,ugi. appear on the.S.;:t.tifit it eNists,:ittp_cie of .4-rea:Cketobkt::!' peoplO,A0K4c city's food -to0,,, QR getting b, paylivingag erNederseVt1161"eat!'i''Ll-131.4-4ittj-il'.. ignatiortgiVelt elowthe'stat 4f(11*04±4§,,,_. sn411' Vart,'-'40,Y* clintea;CpABusiness j t*, irsa& six 1iotth'fg Ifi4J-Zdat4---that are.-yaili .... 41- ticwi'.-cre-lh four areas Per : : %' -' . ee446 ° ;°.le. population:with ' 6 .25 4 nnually to look at coun OaCriekir'S degree age or fiilgtiertiiernployment rate, per. -dentage:of -the population below poyerty,andrper,capita,income. totulty is below the 'thresh- -old inthree or four areas; as Crook and Jefferson counties have been ..7%fleattheligrthree YearS, then all the citie$ In the county are •::. . t:onstdereddiA-resId. If a county 'DeSChtites County, the agencY --'-'pni.3,:„..i:d,e-d-ifiai•egied such 10)%oityil*city!3at1/43.'tile,latest .4censi,Wdata.,.AndersOn said: 1 :. *DA` DeSChtite's ''''totint-Y, • datkfrom the 2000 ,census for ,1 8isterS,'1:*-1,ine and DesChute's 1 er Woods' fell below the an!-- ,1 ual average for counties that -•-1.. ltur ._. '"- ' 6- igifireshold each .' A,'-'1-'-' • , ,'.,u4f4t"VI'1'4,V,-:: -: rtff ,ait.I.Yry!....••;.::, -F..-2,:, - gs`data t. 0 'ektiWesItig-fl43lielAthe1S .?,I.gericy's intent is to help rural ;_citritilunities move forward eco- F..Orokally,2Viderson said. ±.-: ....t., ..., titieS .or,440:4 ifft KicenielP 0,41esikrikibit'afeVtgible4O?.. , number of business -finance lrograrris, including the Oregon 6 umtless 1)e,Ye1c4iitight #Fund::0 ' Mai is a revolving 1:Yan fund t provides long-tetni Ifinti-,;•A retse!IAndersontinanda ncdistressed sgt §rfeaosirs Is businessese:, 1 •c°111. r nu; n1 n•i --,'•''';11 If AlY'afeCis301413§-ed :‘*0,- •::., 1H? s s ti))q tglinill4pe=,!,leia„.„.7,." (447c- rwiss....:.,01.igriav-...- eiki.,:,..,,,,,,,,* us : ,,; ''' eiSegth&Vt 'at fiOnlidp . .... t ft A° icvic-Tee;ati:' ''''P '1, 6:6 kett4 - 41T,A. , . . %it i.: P'Ly 13 lit ; % :ti. de a,:11:Edeit'ir:-!:::::::::::f .%1:. 00 gRi;tti.A-15.17:or%i:iivili677.,c;j:: qr,ftwty.arigi6filn a esd eotWfitint .-,,,.,„,•5.:c= to-om- veiiIs.:k..t.::.e,r,,,, .Iitressed-,c0In-gl$00P5:',:... fia.0'401A41070R1540-4,-. ".Ai,-iii:V**Pin9Piii 4e:ffil;6[201.i,st41'0.;d1P))...7.':: • ' ople are commuting to Bend :work because most of the jobs. are,in Bend," Ray said. "The ej '3,:fleMograPhics have changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years. There s no industry any-. lato more hope it gets better, but I iihkk's going to get worse." 8.4 percent Of La Pine's lation age 25 or higher had hat-baChelor's degree in 2000 ac • Orditig to the data provided by th0e0notnic & conuntinity De-. Velitipthent Department It also ifel,t,Short of stet:eV:U*1140A in the _ *ifeS7ItiVer :-6-0'elhteShOicii in three e four categorles according/ toThe data cPonald c,cm, be 1QN AY MARCH 24 2008 •,THE BULLETIN L♦ on. Crescent Creek would juth 1q }roYevenarte79-ateon1ho Yy , 1 : escort wo .: loy �: t�- sIiii*tiT ma o ost id`e_ sbut it s better than hothing d nght; wl vie ha ew jobs) > o,-u1l mately al Ell boost the economy t Creek could j .b g• x ..fats say a the deshna •sari` condi attract tithe —Mae By PhOstopher Stohar. 'hgPEleft j' 1 r ,. ylews of a;proposed 9 000 -acre deat[nattoq sesgrt }ust south ;of lhne called Cresi ei�t Creek �nchha rioted local restdents ho itope:it d bowill. bring new jobs anostthe economy ni llhere s a potential .for .even Artaisefresprtsaropud La Pines;as Otkamidsiof acres remain eligl blefor theoasorts' w,l cnusually bde,goif rcourses;±.permanent ltomesar}d *ermghtlodgmg ^�; ;)'✓ess than.1 peircent of Klamath 1 4tys.6981600 acre �7est a one resort -;zone is 4beu g used, l; tens of:thousandsrof acres:.. ` 11,eligib1 tn,the norttteip u .111Arnattt AtMV lag- s Eaartnnon, Descllfutes C'oun'ty ;; eliior Planner Terri Payne said e`;kngtvkalikaat ydeVeli a has expressed. inter;-• se �fao o rjt iesatc Ip' t}i gce► iisi-da t are W4MMarni ertt Deschutes Coutst`jr �rtauil Qwest of Highway 97 f to�ereate z nrett e Q !acre nk that La Pine. s a' o, end of Des0hutes homy,.we're going 01911 i6reg Crotid /.;The tiitetln varrouse'stages of develop-. tort ;,€rota Black Butte Ranch: t`ktf eters to., newcomers Brasad{a Ranch in Powell •tic 3x u e `rort&1tave Gum ora .. ail ts�n.:':etit i�rx„A gyres i l� • cggr tt�era ra€a e Zi s epYeliiry ho'ii a a F tY t 'a th o riVer>area resorts•tend exeq Are prooriate to shop there or in Bend, several tra'1 If is ` itiMe, x, S estr%s ioi resp SKIDMORE LAND USE SERVICES, LLC December 31, 2007 Mr. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Principal Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 LAND USE AND ENTITLEMENT CONSULTING 2570 NW SACAGAWEA LANE BEND, OR 97701 (541) 350-3783^^ (541) 317-0551 FAX JONSKI( BENDBROADBAND.COM Subject: TA -07-7 Dear Mr. Gutowsky, Thank you for the continuing dialogue regarding County File TA -07-7. Per our past discussions and your recent email, you have three remaining concerns about the text amendment proposal. Each point will be addressed below. Your comments are shown in italics. ISSUE #1 "The text amendment as currently drafted seems to conflict with Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan destination resort policies DCC 23.84.030 2a and 2h. As the applicant, you 1a'i11 need to determine if adding language to the current code language (18.113.0238) is necessary to he in compliance 1i'ith the County's Comprehensive Plan or whether additional amendments are required." 1 will respond to this issue by conducting a point -by -point review of the policies you cite: 2. Ordinance provisions. a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent land uses through enactment of land use regulations that, at a minimum, provide for the following: 1. Maintenance of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and Response: The text amendment will not change any of the existing protections for natural features. It will not compromise requirements that riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands be maintained. These features are protected by Deschutes County's Goal 5 resource protection program, as well as by the wildlife mitigation requirements of the destination resort code. These protections will remain. 2. Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects on intensive farming operations in the area. 1 Response: Policies (b)(1) and (2) below discuss measures to achieve these goals. The discussion provided after those policies applies to this policy, as well. b. Minimum measures to assure that design and placement of improvements and activities will avoid or minimize the adverse effects noted in Policy 5(b) shall include: 1. The establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses, including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fenced, berms, landscaped areas, and other similar types of buffers. 2. Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses. Response: These plan policies are written broadly to allow the County to provide a variety of legislative approaches to minimize adverse effects of a resort on surrounding lands and uses. They do not dictate a particular setback standard. Rather, they allow the County to adopt setbacks and buffers that are appropriate for the circumstances presented. The policies give the County sufficient flexibility to allow it to treat cluster developments approved on February 7, 1992 or earlier the same as older destination resorts. DCC 18.111025 includes a provision that "grandfathers" setbacks and lot sizes within existing resort development that do not comply with new code provisions that implement this policy. The applicant is simply asking to have cluster developments that predate the adoption of this plan policy and implementing code provisions to be treated the same as a destination resort that was developed under older, less stringent standards. There is no legal reason why the County cannot allow cluster developments developed prior to February 7, 1992 to be treated the same as destination resorts approved prior to the adoption of the 1992 rules. In both cases, it is reasonable for the County to allow an exception to the setback rules adopted in 1992. The county code currently exempts destination resorts developed under the pre -1992 version of the County's destination resort law from complying with location (setback) and design rules adopted in 1992. The exemptions were adopted as part of the 1992 destination resort regulations — specifically through Ordinance 1992-004 (page 2 of Exhibit C). The County adopted 18.1 13.025 because it believed for destination resorts developed under the prior, more lenient standards; full compliance with the new setback and design rules was not necessary to achieve compliance with the plan policies. The proposed text amendment applies only to cluster developments approved prior to February 7, 1992, the date of adoption of the County's destination resort setback and design standards and this plan policy. Prior to that date, it was reasonable for developers of cluster developments to plan developments with an eye to converting the land to a destination resort without designing the development to meet the 1992 destination resort requirements as those restrictions did not yet exist. All that is proposed by this text amendment is to allow the existing, lawfully established development to be a part of a new destination resort without requiring rebuilding roads and improvements in the existing development. This is the same treatment provided for destination resorts approved prior to February 7, 1992. 2 The text amendment will require any new development to comply with the setbacks and rules adopted to implement this plan policy while allowing retention of lawfully constructed improvements. This approach is consistent with State law. ORS 215.130(5) says that "[the lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of the enactment or amendment of any zoning ordinance or regulation may be continued." The same rule applies to development authorized prior to the enactment of new laws. In relationship to consistency with DCC 23.84.030 2a and 2b, it is important to consider the intent of the two policies. The policies seek to establish compatibility standards so that Destination Resorts are compatible with surrounding land uses and that measures are implemented to avoid or minimize adverse effects upon those uses. The policies direct the County to enact land use regulations to assure such compatibility. Chapter 18.113 of the Deschutes County Code has been adopted to fulfill these policies and regulate "the design and placement of improvements and activities to avoid or minimize the adverse affects" through adoption of buffers, setback and other requirements. As discussed in previous correspondence, the existing Aspen Lakes cluster development was designed to accommodate the destination resort regulations in effect in the late 1980s. The changes to the Destination Resort ordinance that were adopted in 1992 provided new setback standards for roads and lot size standards that are now impossible to meet as the roads are constructed and 115 lots were approved and platted through the County review process. Golden Stone Drive is located approximately 50 feet south of the "resort boundary" precluding compliance with 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iv). The 115 existing lots average approximately 1.1 acres in size making compliance with 18.113.060(G)(1) impossible for the existing lots and making it very difficult for the entire planned resort to meet the 22,000 square foot average maximum. The existing Aspen Lakes cluster development was approved through County File CU -89-70. The subject property had already been platted as two rural residential subdivisions prior to the proposed cluster development. The applicants chose to convert/replat the property into a cluster development as part of their overall strategy to incrementally convert to a Destination Resort. The cluster development was reviewed through the County's Conditional Use standards in PL - 15. Typically, conditional use standards are geared toward assuring that the proposed site is suitable for the use and that the use is compatible with the surrounding area. Section 8.050(16) of PL 15 required review of the cluster development against specific compatibility criteria such as: b. Environmental, social and economic impacts likely to result from the development including impacts on public facilities such as schools and roads. The County Hearings Officer that approved the cluster development found "There should be no greater adverse environmental, social or economic impacts as a result of this development compared to the existing approved subdivision." c. Effect of the development on the rural character of the area. 3 In regards to the rural character of the area, the Hearings Officer found, "The proposed cluster development and the accompanying open space should protect the rural character of the area." d. Effect of the development on agricultural, forestry wildlife or other natural resource uses in the area. The County I-learings Officer found "The proposed cluster development, in conjunction with the open space of the golf course, will have the impact of providing more open space that could be used for wildlife habitat, potential small wood lot development and scenic enjoyment. Noting the fact that this area is marginal at best for both agriculture and production of forest products, the proposed cluster development should not have a significant adverse impact on these or other natural resources in the area." Further, section 8.050(16) of PL -15 states "the conditional use shall not he granted unless the following findings are made: d. The rural character of the area shall not be adversely affected." The County Hearings Officer found "The rural character of the area should not be adversely affected due to the clustering of the development within a legally platted subdivision around an approved golf course." Based on these findings, the County found that the proposed cluster development is compatible with the surrounding area and uses and will not have an adverse affect on natural resources. The County's Comprehensive Plan policies in DCC 23.84.030 2a and 2b are geared towards assuring compatibility with surrounding land uses through establishment of setbacks, buffers and other standards for new development within destination resorts. The code language proposed through County File TA07-7 aims to provide relief to the Destination Resort lot size and setback standards for the existing portion of the Aspen Lakes development. The proposed text language would exempt the existing lots from the average lot size calculations of the resort and exempt existing roads from the setback requirements (specifically Golden Stone Drive). However, these exceptions would not cause a proposed Destination Resort to be incompatible with the surrounding area and uses. The Aspen Lakes development has been found to be compatible with the surrounding area by the County as discussed above — therefore, the proposed additions to 18.125 will not conflict with DCC 23.84.030 2a and 2b. If the County is concerned about compatibility issues if other property owners wish to utilize the standards of 18.113.025 as proposed, the applicant would be willing to add language requiring additional compatibility findings such as the bold underlined verbiage below: B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development or cluster development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing destination resort developments, compliance 4 with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required if a past County approval has found the existing development to be compatible with surrounding land uses. ISSUE #2 "Recognizing that 115 platted lots are already developed, can an existing cluster development proposing a destination resort prevent; under DCC 18.113.060, the closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwelling or lots, while overnight accommodations are being constructed?" The answer is "Yes," the developer can prevent the sale, rental or lease of any new residential dwellings or lots approved through the destination resort review process prior to construction of overnight accommodations. However, the developer can't prevent sale, rental or lease of all dwellings or units because Aspen Lakes is already developed with 115 residential lots. As Aspen Lakes does not own any of the 115 lots, the entity does not have control over the sale, rental or lease of these lots. In reading through the legislative history of the debate at the State legislature that led to the new overnight accommodation requirements and considering the intent of the regulations, Aspen Lakes finds that the proposed regulations are aimed at sale, rental or lease of new residential dwellings or lots. Per review of the legislative history, the discussion focused on the need to provide lodging prior to the sale of newly approved residential lots/units. The intent of the law is to avoid "subdivisions outside of UGBs." Often times, Destination Resort developers continuously delay construction of required overnight accommodations as sale of residential dwellings and lots is more profitable than constructing and operating Iodging establishments. Opponents of the "no -sales" regulations argued that the sale of lots was required to raise capital to fund construction of lodging and amenities. Aspen Lakes is in a position where amenities are in place and lodging is needed to maximize the investment in those amenities. Aspen Lakes needs lodging and wants to construct it. Aspen Lakes contains 115 existing residential lots. It is not possible to provide 50 units of overnight accommodations prior to the sale of these lots. The new regulations were adopted to assure that a sufficient amount of lodging is constructed in a timely manner and to provide true lodging options for visitors of the resort. The intent of the new regulations was not to preclude conversion of existing developments to destination resorts based on the timing of the lodging requirement. The applicant anticipates a requirement to construct lodging as the first phase of an approved destination resort application. Towards that end, Aspen Investments, LLC is willing to work with the County to address these concerns and will consider a number of options. Two options are listed below to address this situation: First, the applicant proposes that any approval for the Aspen Lakes Destination Resort require construction of the 50 units of overnight lodging prior to approval of a final plat for new single family residential areas of the resort. The number of lodging units required may increase in order to comply with the 2:1 ratio. 5 A second alternative is to propose a text amendment to section 18.113.060(A)(1) to make the intent of the new regulations clear: At least 150 separate rentable units for visitor -oriented overnight lodging as follows: The first 50 overnight lodging units must be constructed prior to the closure of sales, rental or least of any newly approved residential dwellings or lots. Again, the applicant understands the County's concern but can not control the fate of existing, platted, individually owned Lots that are part of the approved cluster development. It is obvious from review of the legislative history associated with the "no - sales" debate in Salem that the lodging requirement is not aimed at precluding conversion of existing developments to destination resorts. The intent is to assure lodging is constructed in the destination resort to serve the needs of tourists. Aspen Lakes needs that lodging to increase tourism on site and will provide lodging to satisfy demand and County requirements. ISSUE #3 "If a legal determination (supported by County Legal Counsel and DLCD) finds that the conversion of a cluster development consisting of 115 platted lots, does not conflict with state and county land use (destination' resort) law, the applicant will need to demonstrate that they can build overnight accommodations, while still meeting the intent of the no -sales provision (DCC 18.113.060 & Gould v. Deschutes Co. v. Thornburgh)." Your third point actually contains two issues. First, does conversion of a cluster development to a destination resort conflict with destination resort law? Second, can such a conversion meet the intent of the "no -sales" provision? In answering the first question, it is helpful to consider the destination resort mapping requirements as listed in ORS 197.455. The criteria Listed in that statute do not preclude counties from mapping existing developed areas as resort eligible. Therefore, if it was mapped as destination resort eligible, conversion from a cluster development (or any other development) to a destination resort is theoretically possible. If state law was aimed at preventing the conversion of existing developments to destination resorts, ORS 197.455 would list existing developed areas as ineligible for the destination resort napping designation. Further, the mapping of destination resorts was a land use process conducted by the County that was subject to public comment and review. As the Aspen Lakes property has been mapped as destination resort eligible and the land use decision was not appealed, the County has determined that this property is eligible to apply for a conditional use approval to permit the development of a destination resort. 6 Once mapped as eligible, the County's conditional use review process is used to evaluate the proposal and determine if it meets County regulations for such resorts. The challenge for any destination resort proposal is to show how the proposed development complies or can comply with the myriad of regulations within the DCC 18.113 as well as applicable state and federal laws (water rights law, for example). The County can approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal based on the merits of the application. If approved, the implementation of the resort is reviewed through the required Final Master Plan review and review of individual development applications for the different phases of the resort. In this case, we propose to amend existing code language (18.113.025) that applies to existing destination resorts so that the flexibility applies to cluster developments approved before February 1992. This flexibility will aid in the applicant's ability to meet County regulations through the Conceptual Master Plan, Final Master Plan and individual site plan/tentative plan reviews. The text amendment was proposed to address two discrete aspects of the existing Aspen Lakes development. These amendments will exempt the 115 existing lots from the lot size average maximum in 18.113.060(G)(1) and will exempt Golden Stone Drive from the road setback requirement in 18.116.060(G)(2)(a)(iv). The County land use regulations contain a mechanism to address challenging existing conditions through the variance process. Variances are typically granted if the applicant can demonstrate that a hardship will result from complying with the applicable regulation, that the hardship is not a self-created difficulty and that the relief sought is the minimum necessary to permit development. The applicant could have applied for variances to these standards as part of the Destination Resort application. Although the applicant could meet the requirements for variance approval, the applicant chose to apply for the text amendment to avoid the variance process. The applicant chose the text amendment route due to the limited scope of the proposed amendments and the fact that the flexibility requested is already provided to other existing developments. As both the Aspen Lakes cluster development and specific destination resorts were designed to comply with the standards in effect prior to 1992, it is reasonable and equitable to request the same flexibility contained in 18.113.025 also apply to Aspen Lakes. The older resorts that were developed prior to 1992 would now be challenged by the setback and average lot size standards if 18.113.025 was not proposed by Eagle Crest and approved by the County. The proposed text amendments will not affect any new portions of the proposed resort; the new development proposed as part of the destination resort application will comply with the lot size and setback standards in 18.113.060. In regards to the question of meeting the intent of the "no -sales" provision of 18.113.060A, the applicant finds that the intent of that provision is to preclude the sale, rental or lease of new residential dwellings prior to construction of the first 50 units of overnight accommodations. The applicant has no control over the 115 existing residential lots that were developed as part of the cluster development. Further, as discussed above, the intent of the no -sales law was not to preclude conversion of existing developments to destination resorts. Upon approval of a destination resort application, the applicant is willing to delay approval of final plats for new residential lots within the resort until the 50 required lodging units have been constructed. The 7 applicant also identified another option to address that situation on page 4 of this letter for consideration. If County staff members have other ideas the applicant would be willing to discuss them as a means to meeting the intent of that regulation. However, it is evident that requiring the construction of overnight lodging prior to plat approval of new residential units within Aspen Lakes meets the intent of the regulation. I appreciate this opportunity to provide additional information for review of County file TA07-7. You have identified several issues in review of the application for TAN -7 and the applicant has addressed those concerns. We fully understand Aspen Lake's unique entitlement and development history — it is why we have proposed these text amendments. We also understand the intent of the new destination resort regulations. They are not geared towards preventing the conversion of Aspen Lakes into a destination resort - they aim to require destination resort developers to provide the lodging component that makes a resort a resort. These new regulations do not prevent the County from reviewing the proposed text amendments and looking forward do not preclude the ability for Aspen Lakes to convert to a destination resort. We are willing to work with County staff in the continued collaborative manner to resolve any new concerns but request that this file be deemed complete so that hearing dates can be set and we can continue to plan the resort application. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. Thank you. S'ncerely, c Skidmore, AICP 8 SK.IDMC RE LAND USE SERVICES, LLC. November 14, 2007 Mr. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Principal Planner Deschutes County 117 NW :Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Stibjeeet: TA -0,7-7 Dear. Mr. Gutowsky, LAND USE AND ENTiTLEME_NT C.ONs.ULTING 2570 NW SACAGAWEA LANE BEND, OR 97701 (541) 350-3783 (541.), 317-0551 FAX JONSKI@BENDBROADBANo.COM Than(. 'you #pr your corresponden e frOM October 18, 2007 regarding the above rof reneecd.land use ,le . This letter Will :address your concerns and provide ad -44;013J information supporting.tlie proposedtext amendments. I will -addr ess your concerns on a point by point basis. Point #:1. In the 10/18/07 email you requested additional information regarding "why the text a endrrtent. associated with the second half of 18 113.025 is needed' (see quoted sentence below):, "`\When.. new faerlrt.les are .required to bring existing cluster developments into compliance with current destination resort lain, those facilities shall be provided or, where allowed, financially assured prior to the development of an expansion arca." Further, you requested :4 -definition of 'facilities." This language Was proposed due to the anticipated changes to section 18.113.060(l)(a) is.part of County file TA -04-4, "1'he proposed changes require. the first 5G overnight lodging~units' to be constructed prior to the closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots This language could pose problems for the conversion of the current development at Aspen lakes to a Destination Resort because there are approximately 115 platted lots that Were approved through a. series of cluster de\elopment applications starting with. CU -:89-70. The existing Uol,fCourse Lstates at .Aspen Lakes development will he a part of the Aspen Lakes .l)estination.Resort application, As the applicant has no control over whether existing lot owners sell their property prior to the construction of the required 50 lodging units, the applicant seeks CO provide langaag?e assuring. compliance with the anticipated changes to the County Lode. The terra "facilities" refers to the required amenities for a Destination Resort including overnight accommodations, recreational amenities, restaurant or meeting facilities. Again, the intent of the suggested language is to avoid a situation where the existing development ext site precludes the ability to comply with the timelines and development scenarios envisioned by the latest -text arnendruents in County Erle T -.04-4. 1 Point #2 — Cluster Development Profile Your second point requests additional information that analyzes how many Cluster Developments will be affected by the proposed Text Amendments. We .have worked with Tim Berg from the County GIS Department to provide -a list of Cluster Developments that were approved by the County prior to the February 7, 1992 date proposed in the Text Amendment application. We understand that the County's concern is that such an amendment may "open the door" for Other Outer daT1(10101118 to 001Veft to DatiotItion Resorts utilizing the proposed According to the information provided by Tim only three other cluster developments were approved in Deschutes. County prior to February 7$ 1992: CU -90-17, CV -90-28, CU-91-84.it m very unlikely that these ehiSter development will corivertto Destination Resort regardless of the proposed text amendments. Further, the proposed text amendments do not provide di astic. relief to the Destination Resort entitlement process, The proposed text will not create a loophole that will allow unfettered Destination Resort approvals due to the limited scope of the changes. CU -91 - 17 — Vandevert Ranch From -research of the County's documents, County file CU -90-1 7: approved Vandevert.Ranch. Vandevert R40011,0onsist-of approximately -400.tteres„: It appears as though the anster Development only approved 80 ocres for. development. The remaining 320 40resi in open space which contains a large athount of weilandhiparianiflOodplain areas that are ofT-limits to development. The Vand evert Ranch Association has recorded "Amended Declarations, Restrictions, Protective Covenants and Conditions for Vandevert Ranch Ali Phases" on February -1.3, 2006. Although this developinent is large enough to be converted. to a Destination Resort it is unlikely to convert for a nunther of reasons. First, 1115 highly unlikely that the Vandevert Ranch Association will want. 150 overnight accommodations on site which eater to transient occupants. The current CCRs do not permit dwelling units within the Ranch to be rented for less than a period of 12 months, Therefore., it is .unlikely that the Ranch would welcome overnight guests on site. Next there would need. to be a substantial investment ($7,000,000 in 1993 dollars) to meet the overnight lodging, .eating/Meetirig establishment and recreational amenity requirement. Further, the CCRs do not have a "conversion ;clause" that permits Vandevert Ranch Association to apply to convert the ranch to a destination resort. In order to amend the CCRs the amendment must be approved by at least 75% of the A.ssociation's membership. Although the proposed text amendments would apply to Vandevert Ranchit is bighlv unlikely that the development would convert to a destination resort. C1.J-90-28 -- Pace Estates Review of the County records reveals that. this Ouster development approved:a 3 lot Ouster devekipment with an •approximate 17 acre open space tract. The entirety of the development is 22.39 acres. This acreage is not large enough 10 be :approved for a Destination Resort per DCC 18.113.060(B). The proposed text amendments will 11.o1 affect this development or its ability to convert to a Destination Resort. CU. -91-84 — Juniper Ridge This cluster development was applied for in 1991, l3owcver, it is unclean from discussions with Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner as to whether this application was ever approved. In any event, it ' as riev er platted. Therefore, the proposed tent amendments, will not affeet the property on whieh the: application was made. Although the applicant understands the County'srei.tiotanee to create :a loophole that may be exploited by others, the fiat is that this text amendment will realistically only be;utilized by the .Aspen Lakesdevelopment. err. Point #3 — Ju. stifying.a cluster development that by=passes destination resort standards you state in your letter, :.why should Aspen .1. akes be title to have a :lower density when all other destination resorts in;:Deschutes County have to comply with the Connty's .destination. resort.lot average requirement?" Further you reason that the flexibility provided through 1.8,113.023 was provided to Eagle Crest hecause it: had, un.li.ke Aspen Lakes, obtained a. conditional use approval to develop as a destination resort. 'The message is clear — Aspen Lakes had the opportunity to apply for a destination' resort versus a cluster development and if it had, 18.113.025 would be available in the continued development of the property. Last, the letter states thatthe applicant's :contention that the strategy for the cluster development/destination— resort conversion was developed in concert with staff is not supported by County documentation. The question of why Aspen Lakes should be treated differently than other. Destination Resort applicants is a fair one. ]here are a number of reasons why this proposal 1s different than the typical. Destination Resort. First, .all new Destination Resorts must construct or financially guarantee all of the required components of the resort. including $7,000,000 -worth ofrecreational amenities, restaurant, convention facilities; overnight ac:cornrnodations, etc. 'Typically the resort applicant. is looking til bond for a number o:fthe :required improvenien.ts placing the County in an enforcement position if the developers default or otherwise fail to deliver. Aspen Lakes is very unique in terms of its state of development on site due to the existence Of the golf course; restaurant/conference center, swirmiting:pool, tennis courts, pro shop, fitness center, etc. In fact, compared to other cluster developments and emerging destination resorts Aspen Lakes is very self-contained. Aspen Lakes contains the majority ttfthe Main components of the Destination Resort such. as recreational amenities, a visitor oriented eating establishment with seating for at least 100 people, meeting rooms for at least .100 people and single family residential' units. The conversion to a Destination Resort will permit the construction ofneeded .and wanted overnight accommodations. 3 Further, when reviewing new Destination Resorts, the County requires assurance that projects are economically viable. The fact that :Aspen Lakes is operating with 213's of the amenity package typical .for resorts, there is little tisk to the County that it will default on its obligations. The project is economically viable. Lodging and a .m:ix of additional housing on site will only increase the economic viability oft the project by providing additional guests to use the golf course and other amenities. Another unique -circumstance relates tti the chosen el.uster,conversion.route: When the .strategy for- Aspen Lakes wasdeveloped: the legal criteria that currently pose a. challenge were not im. impediment. So, the decision to pursue the cluster de% elopment>conversion. route .did. not have an associated Brisk that if developed rn an incremental fashion. the. Destination Resort standards would not be met. Aspen. Lakos chose to design and develop the Cluster development using the Destination Resort standards in order to permit. an easier transition. Obviously the changes to the Destination Resort oidinai ce rn 1992 have complicated the transition. From our perspective, a Destination Resort approval for Aspen 1 akes will provide the ability for additional lodging and. residential uses on site that are. currently not permitted. Providing flexibility on the setback for the existing Golden Stone Drive and permitting the lot sizes to slightly exceed the .regui ement 118.113.060(G) will help Aspen Lakes to convert to a Destination 'Resort:and in doing so implement the purpose of -destination resorts as discussed by the County's Coni.prehensive Plau.. The County's Comprehensive Plan states the following about l:)estination Resorts: • The numerous beneficial impacts of destination resorts are recognized by Statewide Planning Goal 8 and by implementing statutes. The development of destination resorts can serve as an important element: to diversify the economic base of the County. • Since 1979 destination resorts have increased in importance to the economy of Deschutes County. • Tourism in general has -increased in importance to the Oregon economy, particularly as the timber industry has gone into decline. The County recognizes the importance of'balancing protection mechanisms for resource lands and. rural land uses V.ith the economic berrerit , destination resorts provide. Permitting the proposed flexibility will provide Aspen Lakes the ability to convert to a. .Destination Resort and meet the other rigid standards :of 18.113. Further, the conversion will continue to diversify and contribute to the economic base of the County. 11 will also help to enhance tourism and overnight visitation in Deschutes County while providing adequate protection to the surrounding resource lands and rural land users, The proposed text amendments will not permit any new development to adversely impact surrounding rural and resource lands. The changes merely provide .a way to plan. the resort, include the existing development and provide lodging and residential units that meet consumer demand. The initial application submitted states "the large ex.isting lots skew the average lot size in a manner that makes it extremely difficult to provide a mix of unit types and lot sizes that meet 4 both the County regulations and market demand." During our conversation on October 25 you mentioned that no economic justification had been provided:to suppoit the chiim. Aspen. Lakes has been working with an economic consultant lb provide market studies and other needed data .an. effort to :show the County that the project will continue to be economically viable. F& rrarr ni & Associates has_ perfot'rned an economic evaluation of the destination resort market in Central Oregon. According to their independent findings, in order for a destination resort in Central Oregon to be economically :feasible i:t.must contain a range of products to appeal. to :different types of visitors and home owners, as well as to mitigate:tisk. of developi ent in a changing housing market 71:°he provision of a diverse mix of housing types is seen throughout the numerous d.estinatton resorts throughout Central Oregon — even on the :high end of the :spectruni there are fractional/townhouse units, condominiums, cabins and: larger lots provided to best meet the varied •:market :demand. This is no different tai Aspen Latices there needs to :be diversity in stock to attract people and purchasers to :the resort, :Research by Ferrarrin:i & Associates has revealed that town:homes do provide a good nrvestmen. t option :tor people looking to purchase in Destination Resorts..In fact, the townhouse product is viewed as providing a slightly better return on investinent fog the de: eloper• than single family residential omits m resost:deyel,opments, Therefore, from a business perspective: providing a relatively large supply of these runts. is a good idea because it provides:a good investment opportunity and presumably meets market demand .However, there is a point of diminishing returns with regard to the market absorption potential for townhomes Offering all tov, nhonic lots to offset the existing large lots may satisfy (and exceed) the County's lot size standards; but Would not result in an adequate or sustainable financial retctrn on investment over the long;-term to justify significant capital Mvestment and open spat e.set asides. Currently, the applicant plans to provide approximately a large amount .of attached and ttauiti-fami.lyunits.. Per Porrariniii & Associates, the amount of attached units cont.erti.plated..'`:is already viewed as pushing the limits of"what the market can be expected to absorb over: the next 15-20 years on this site." It is recommended that there be a mix of small lot single family residential lots combined iMth tow°nliomes, cabins, and condo hotel development types to meet the needs of the consumers,, assure absorption and provide an adequate long-term financial ;return :tor the •continued economic viability ol'the resort. The application did reference the fact that the conversion strategy employed, to date was designed in consultation with County Staff. The 10/24 email states that this claim is not supported. by County documentation. Although the County records may not be conclusive, there is evidence of this strategy's existence in the Aspen Lakes CCRs that were adopted in 1993. The OCRs contain specific provisions that state that by purchasing a lot within the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes, the purchaser `expressly consents" to an application to convert the Closter Development into a Destination Resort." Although there may not be evidence in County records, this strategy was based on interaction with County staff_ Summary We appreciate this opportunity to address the concerns you raised your email and phone conversations. The intent of the Destination Resort ordinance is to assluie that the resorts are planned to diversify the local economy, contribute to the ever-growing tourism sector of the economy, and avoid the siting of rural subdivisions, Aspen Lakes is unique in the filet that the desired resort amenities are in place and ready:for additional use. 7:`he annual number of rounds of golf played on the course is constrained by the limited lodging options in the area. Increasing the amount of visitors to the site :will contribute to the local economy and require additional services on site to serve the gn.ests., Unlike other destination resorts in the County, Aspen Lakes welcomes a lodging component I he proposed text amendments provide relief to two discreet portions of the Destination. Resort code. The proposed text amendments: do not provide drastic relief to the D;estrnation Resort entitlement process, The effect:of these am:endments is very limited. ited.. In reality, these .changes will be utilized by only one cluster development; Aspen Lakes, Please contact me i f you have any questions relating to this letter or the application T will contact you to review notice timelines and the review process .from here forward. Thanks you :for your assistance on this matter. Sincerely, l'onSkidnore. A.IC.;T 6 TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO DESCHUTES COUNTY PREPARED FOR: Aspen Investments, LLC 16900 Aspen Lakes Drive Sisters, OR 97759 October 11, 2007 Burden of Proof Statement supporting an application for a Text Amendment to add language to Deschutes County Code 18.113.025. The intent is to permit a specific existing Cluster Development to convert to a Destination Resort utilizing the same flexibility in existing lot size and setback requirements that expanding Destination Resorts enjoy. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Applicant: Aspen Investments, LLC, 16900 Aspen Lakes Drive, Sisters, OR 97759. Attorneys: Tia Lewis, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, 354 SW Upper Terrace Drive, Suite 101, Bend, OR 97702. Liz Fancher, 644 NW Broadway St., Bend, OR 97701. Land Use Planner: Skidmore Land Use Services, LLC, 2570 NW Sacagawea Lane, Bend, OR 97701 (contact: Jon Skidmore, AICP). II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant owns and operates the Aspen Lakes Golf Course. The applicant also developed the accompanying homesites that adorn the course. The applicant obtained approximately 1084 acres of property in the late 1980s that had been platted as a "sagebrush subdivision." The applicant as new owners met with County planners to discuss how the property could be redeveloped into a destination resort. The biggest challenge posed by the regulations for destination resorts was upfront costs associated with providing on-site recreational facilities. A lack of capital prevented an application for such a resort at the time. A number of options were considered and on the recommendation of County planners, the owners decided to develop the property in progressive stages in order to realize the vision of a destination res ort on the property in an incremental fashion. One strategy considered was to apply for a Cluster Development with a golf course to be used as open space. However, the County regulations would not permit such open space and therefore, the strategy was reconsidered. The applicant then applied for a conditional use application to permit a golf course through County permit number CU -88-77. Upon land use approval for the golf course, applications were made to approve a Cluster Development under file CU -89-70. The cluster development approval approved 144 homesites on the subject property, a clubhouse, a recreational center and required 65% open space. The applicant has worked with the County since then to implement different phases of the golf course and cluster development approvals. To date, the County has approved a total of 27 holes of golf on the site yet only 18 have been constructed. The 144 homesites approved include 19 homes in the Rim at Aspen Lakes. That development will not be a part of a destination resort proposal at Aspen Lakes. The 144 approved homesites include 117 lots that have been developed within the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes development. 1 In order to complete the process to convert to a Destination Resort, the applicant requests a Text Amendment to section 18.113.025 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Currently, the section of the code reads as such: 18.113.025. Application to existing resorts. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts shall meet the following criteria: A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing destination resort, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) The applicant proposes to add language to this section of the code to permit the specific cluster development (Aspen Lakes) to convert to a Destination Resort. The applicant's plans for the destination resort include the existing golf course, clubhouse, restaurant and homesites as part of the application. Consistent with the plan to ultimately convert to a Destination Resort, the applicant designed the cluster development so that it met the requirements for destination resorts at that time. Since the cluster development was approved, the standards that regulate destination resorts have changed. As a result, the current destination resort setback and lot size requirements cannot be met by the existing development in some instances. Specifically, Golden Stone Drive that serves the northern most properties within the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes is within 50 feet of what will be the resort's northern Exterior Boundary. This distance does not comply with the requirements of 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iv) which requires a 100 foot setback from exterior boundaries for roads. Further, the 117 existing homesites that were developed as the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes average approximately 1.11 acres (48,415 square feet) in size. This relatively large lot size is more than double the maximum average lot size for destination resorts of 22,000 square feet as specified in 18.113.060(G)(1). As a result, the large existing lots skew the average lot size in a manner that makes it extremely difficult to provide a mix of unit types and lot sizes that meet both the County regulations and market demand. It would require a multitude of smaller zero lot line lots (townhouses) to offset the 117 existing 1+ acre homesites to comply with the 22,000 square foot average maximum. Per discussions with County Staff, DCC 18.113.025 was adopted to assist the Eagle Crest Destination Resort. Due to the fact that early phases of Eagle Crest were developed prior to the current setback and lot size requirements, exception language was added to permit additional phases to develop in a manner that met the new setback and lot size requirements but exempted 2 the existing lots and setbacks from those calculations. Specifically, 18.113.025 states "compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required" for the areas "covered by the existing destination resort." Although Aspen Lakes was not developed as a Destination Resort the owners have worked with County Staff over the past 20 years to develop the property in a fashion that would permit the entire property to be converted to a Destination Resort. The same flexibility provided to Eagle Crest would provide Aspen Lakes the ability to design a Destination Resort that responds to market demand in terms of the types of units offered for rent and sale. The applicant proposes to modify DCC 18.113.025 in a manner that will extend that flexibility to Aspen Lakes specifically. Conversations with County Staff revealed that there was concern about whether changing the language in 18.113.025 could lead to a situation where other Cluster Developments would try to utilize such language and make applications for destination resorts. In an effort to refine the language so that it applies to a discrete circumstance the applicant proposes inserting language that specifies that 18.113.025 only applies to those Cluster Developments approved prior to 1992. In February 1992, County Ordinance 92-004 was adopted introducing a new section, 18.113, Destination Resorts to the Deschutes County Code. That new section of the County Code established the boundary setbacks that are posing the challenge in planning the Aspen Lakes project. The applicant is working with the County's GIS department to verify the number of Cluster Developments that were developed prior to 1992. The applicant is confident that due to the unique development history of Aspen Lakes to date, the proposed Text Amendment will not encourage other Cluster Developments that may not be as well situated for a destination resort proposal to make such applications'. Further, the applicant is confident that the exception language will only provide needed flexibility to Aspen Lakes. III. CRITERIA AND CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: • Title 18.113.025, Deschutes County Code. • Title 23, Deschutes County Code. • Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. All applicable criteria or requirements are set forth below in bold text, followed by an explanation of how this application meets the criteria. Review Criteria Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. The parameters for evaluating these text amendments are based on ' The developer of the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes placed language in the CCRs that specifies that in purchasing a lot in the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes, the purchaser "expressly consents" to an application to convert the Cluster Development into a Destination Resort. 3 whether there are adequate factual findings that demonstrate consistency with the Statewide Goals and the County's own zoning and land use goals and policies. The findings provided below demonstrate that the proposed Title 18 text amendments are consistent with state statute, the Statewide Planning Goals, the County's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Findings The proposed amendment would revise Deschutes County Code Title 18 to permit Cluster Developments approved prior to February 7, 1992 to utilize the setback and lot size flexibility provided in 18.113.025 if such developments apply to convert to a Destination Resort. The proposed language is included in Exhibit A to this document. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Finding: Goal 1 would be satisfied through our County text amendment process that will include a Planning Commission public hearing, a County Board of Commissioners public hearing and possible work sessions. These meetings will be adequately noticed providing the public the opportunity to be involved in this issue. Goal 2 — Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Finding: Deschutes County has established a process and policy framework to assure that decisions rendered by the County on land use applications have an adequate factual basis. No exceptions to the Statewide Planning Goals are requested with this application. This burden of proof document will provide the needed factual basis to support this Text Amendment. Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Finding: Much of the property throughout the County that has been mapped for Destination Resorts has an underlying Exclusive Farm Use Zoning and Agricultural Plan Designation. However, this proposal will not affect EFU zoned property because Cluster Developments are not permitted within the EFU zoned property in the County. Goal 4 — Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. 4 Finding: Much of the property throughout the County that has been mapped for Destination Resorts has an underlying Forest Use Zoning and Forest Plan Designation. However, this proposal will not affect Forest zoned property because Cluster Developments are not permitted within the Forest zoned property in the County. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Finding: This Text Amendment will not affect the ability of Goal 5 resources to be protected as required by State and County regulations. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Finding: The proposed Text Amendment will have no effect upon the air, water and land resources quality in Deschutes County. This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. Finding: The proposed Text Amendment will have no effect on areas subject to natural hazards. This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Goal 8: Recreation Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Finding: The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with Goal 8. This proposal in no way circumvents the mapping exercise that designated areas as eligible for Destination Resorts within Deschutes County. The County has already mapped such sites and only those lands mapped as such are eligible to make application for a Destination Resort. In other words, cluster developments that were not identified as resort eligible will not benefit from this Text Amendment. The siting and locational standards adopted by the County to help implement Goal 8 will continue to be observed. However, the proposed Text Amendment will permit Cluster Developments that were approved prior to February 7, 1992 and are mapped as Destination Resort eligible to be able to convert to Destination Resorts by exempting existing development from the setback and lot size requirements listed in section 18.113.060(G). Any new development proposed as part of the Destination Resort will need to meet the setback and lot size standards in 18.113.060(G). 5 The review process for Destination Resorts established in DCC 18.113.040 will be used to determine whether any proposed applications meet the requirements for approval of a destination resort. Goal 9: Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Finding: Destination Resorts contribute to the economic development of the County through increased tourism opportunities and increased jobs that accompany planning, development, management and operation of the resorts. This proposed text amendment will not have an adverse affect on the economic benefits of Destination Resorts. Goal 10: Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Goal 12: Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Goal 13: Energy Conservation. To conserve. energy. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Goal 14: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this Text Amendment application. Statewide Planning Goals 15 —19 are goals that do not apply to Deschutes County. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed Text Amendment would have no effect on Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Chapter 23.84, Destination Resorts provides the comprehensive plan basis for 6 destination resorts in Deschutes County. The majority of that chapter of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan explains the history of destination resorts, beneficial economic development effects, need to balance the positive effects of resorts with the effects upon rural, agricultural and forest zoned properties and the mapping exercise designating areas as destination resort eligible. Policy 2 in DCC 23.84.030 states that ordinance provisions shall be adopted to ensure that resorts are compatible with surrounding land uses. Further, buffers shall be created to assure such compatibility. The proposed Text Amendment will permit the Aspen Lakes property to exempt the existing development from setback and lot size standards that were adopted on February 7, 1992. All new areas to be developed as part of the proposed resort will need to meet the setback and lot size standards. Again, the Aspen Lakes development has been constructed in an incremental fashion based on County Staff suggestions to protect the ability to convert the property to a Destination Resort. The Cluster Development that was approved on site (CU -89-70) was planned using the destination resort regulations that were in place to guide the design to assure the ability to convert in the future. Since then the regulations have changed. Now that the owners are prepared to make the application for a destination resort, the setback and lot size requirements are presenting a challenge due to the existing development on site. The proposed Text Amendment would provide the relief that Eagle Crest enjoys due to its pre-existing development that does not comply with today's regulations. The owners of Aspen Lakes request that same ability. The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the County's Comprehensive -Plan. IV. SUMMARY: The applicant has shown that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the State of Oregon's Planning Goals and Guidelines. The applicant has shown that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed text amendment is very discrete in nature and will provide the flexibility needed to plan a successful and beneficial destination resort. This small change in the Zoning Code text will provide needed flexibility so that Aspen Lakes can better contribute to the tourism industry in Deschutes County and in doing so strengthen the local economy. The applicant respectfully requests approval of this application. 7