HomeMy WebLinkAboutDestination Resort Mapping DiscussionCommunity Development Department
Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925
(541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.orus\cdd
Memorandum
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
DATE: January 21, 2009
MEETING: January 28, 2009
SUBJECT: Destination Resort Discussion
DESTINATION RESORT MAPPING ALTERNATIVES
At a meeting with the Board of County Commissioners on January 5, 2009 staff raised some
alternatives for updating the adopted destination resort overlay map. The Commissioners
requested that staff present the alternatives in table form and schedule a work session.
Attached please find the table of alternatives. Also attached is an abbreviated checklist and
point system document to clarify how that alternative might function.
The relevant section of the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) is quoted below.
ORS 197.445(2)
"In carrying out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of its
comprehensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The
map must be based on reasonably available information and may be amended
pursuant to ORS 197.610 to 197.625, but not more frequently than once every 30
months. The county shall develop a process for collecting and processing
concurrently all map amendments made within a 30 -month planning period. A
map adopted pursuant to this section shall be the sole basis for determining
whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting pursuant to ORS
197.435 to 197.467"
Attachments:
1. Table of alternatives
2. Abbreviated sample destination resort checklist and point system
Destination Resort Map and Process Alternatives
N
L
c
O
E
O
M
U)
>
U)
0
c
O
c
O
L
c
O
2
O
E
O
c
>
C
O
15
0
c
O
0
N
4E
C
O
E
c
O
E
O
Q
O
E
'0
O
O
Q
O
Q
a)
ED -
0 O
.0
O
O
U
O
oa)`
O 0
_c r13 CU
u) � 1
O
O 1 -S.
_0 To c O
a) 0,N
> V) (/)
coCU ic)
E'0 -0
0 O
O O V)
"O O _o
OC
_ 0 U)
TDc '6,, >
._ O U)
-0 --0
4)
NO O
N > V)
-0 CO
O
O O
N4--
0 Q 1E
Q cu
OU 5
0
0- c
N =
N N
v= N O
O > E
1 --(ii U) 1.
c 0
�- O
c Q
..5): O a) 0
L
= y- .0
U) . =
4)
- Q c
a.. O
Q ,
N _o O
0 `' O
O O
c t =
'C 0 U
43 N
C 0) crs
0.— E
V'X O
O
a
0
c O
O c 0)
O O
H O0
Question 1: Mapping Alternatives
z
0
Reactive; doesn't address the current
oversupply of inappropriately mapped
areas; doesn't address community
concerns
160 acres may be too small for a resort
to be economically feasible; may
trigger Measure 49 claims; may
exclude properties that could be
combined with adjoining eligible
properties to meet the 160 acre
minimum; may not address community
concerns
Unsuitable properties may remain
mapped; may trigger Measure 49
claims
May trigger Measure 49 claims
PROS
Easy; does not require the county to
initiate a map amendment
Eliminates properties that don't meet
the state required resort minimum of
160 acres
Allows property owners to have a
voice; should eliminate a majority of
unsuitable lots
Completely cleans up the map; allows
the county to start over in determining
where resorts should be located
ALTERNATIVE
1. Wait for a property owner to request
a map amendment.
2. Remove all mapped parcels without
160 acres of contiguous ownership.
3. Notify property owners and remove
all property where there is not an
objection or an approved resort.
Where there is an objection the Board
will make a policy decision based on
specific conditions or on the process
created to consider ma. • in • re. uests.
4. Notify property owners and remove
all properties except for those with
already approved resorts.
Destination Resort Map and Process Alternatives
rn
c
O ' co
N C co -0
-t U) U a) Uj O
N L 0_ L_ C 4-0-
2 2
Oc Qa > E O
O+� L OCDc L
C O .....
0 E E
:«. N t— 0 (0 a)
>
N CL ,C)
U 00 =-CIQOO
a) Q O
O NN C —
R3 C 03
CD V
73
Oa) C
O 0_13 (0
C 4.7:O a) > (a
a) U 0)
U 2 > a) O w
30 N "� O (0
t CO U 0 (1)
to V =_o->
(0 a — ,
t C O 3 a) Q.
al U).2 -a
U)L
Ny-- c U
O o O N O
O .F. O),a)
0 C CO O 'p
2 a) O .2 u)
OCrrt Q U
CU
N CO N O
.O O V a) U a
0) 0 O rO 0
U eL
0 .0 (0 (Q 0
N ~ L a)
(0 6 c 73 1-6 0
al (0 a) (a U N
E O N O a)
�. L N
Tii E_c
N = L
U
aO 2 C) C •
C •E `O `•� C
EO_
tea)' -pa).
_N.0 (0 C 2 a)
(Dc 0)� O U)
'p, -.,G O C"O
O3•�a)U)0
. - E a)
o N 2 C a U C
-is E -c; Q
r.,),
as
O' Q -•`O (a Q
Zia)
• U) (0 a) O O_
N .E 0 E Q> N
a (4 U E
a E u) N E O Q
C a) "0 O C ` O-
U=a)oQQ-(a
�. (0 E
N 2 EL Q -_c
0 C O
L C (? O Y N
F-- a) .c 3 E LT
Question 2: Process Alternatives
Abbreviated Sample Destination Resort Checklist and Point System
POINTS EARNED
M
COtiI
N
N--
MI
POSSIBLE POINTS
NMIt�LO
CO
Nr-�r-
M
1 BENEFITS AND IMPACTS
Economic Benefits/Impacts
1 Creates xi- temporaryjjobs
1 Creates x+ permanent jobs
Creates xi- _jobs p ging greater than the area median income
1 80% + jobs created pay minimum wage
Economic study shows the resort will function as a tourist
destination
9 Taxes paid increase by x%
TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS/IMPACTS
Traffic Benefits/Impacts
1 Nearby intersections have adequate capacity
hNearby intersections will exceed capacity due to resort
1 Nearby intersections are already beyond capacity
Transportation improvement identified in TSP
TOTAL TRAFFIC BENEFITS/IMPACTS
Water Benefits/Impacts
Recycled water used for landscaping
0
4)
1 TOTAL WATER BENEFITS/IMPACTS
0
U)