Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunriver Town Center DocumentsDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of 2-27-08 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: 2-14-08 FROM: Terri Hansen Payne CDD 385-1404 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on PA -07-6 and TA -07-6, amendments to create a Town Center disctrict in the Sunri\ er Urban Unincorporated Community PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? NO BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: These proposed plan and text amendments were prepared in conjunction with the Sunriver Owners Association Board of Directors. They would permit the redevelopment of the Sunriver Village Mall area into a mixed use development with urban level residential density. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this project, but added conditions intended to address some of the potential impacts. Note that Attachment 10 to the Staff Report is not included, but will be added when it is available. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Review and discuss the proposal and set a time, date and location for a public hearing. ATTENDANCE: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: N/A Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 9770 -1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.Lis/cdd/ STAFF REPORT To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner Date: February 27, 2008 Subject: Work Session on Plan & Text Amendments PA-07-6/TA-07-6 I. PURPOSE SilverStar Destinations has proposed plan amendment PA -07-6 and text amendment TA -07-6 to revise Deschutes County Code (DCC) to create a Town Center district in the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The Town Center would accommodate mixed-use development including retail, commercial, overnight lodging, live/work and multi -family residential uses. 11. PROCESS Starting in 2006, the applicant worked with the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) Board of Directors and together they created a proposal generally acceptable to both the applicants and the SROA Board. At a pre -application meeting in early 2007, staff noted that the proposed amendments are somewhat unusual and outlined a three part process for the applicant. • Step 1 is to create the language and regulations for a new Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district in Sunriver. This step is legislative and includes review and a recommendation from the Planning Commission (Commission) to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), who will make the final decision. • Step 2 is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps to apply the new district to specific properties. This step is quasi-judicial with the initial findings and decision done by a hearings officer, and the Board again making the final decision. • Step 3 is to submit a conceptual site plan and individual site plans. These are quasi- judicial processes which will go to a hearings officer. The current application is Step 1 and is important because it creates the review criteria for future development. Yet, the new regulations will not apply to any specific land until the rezone is complete and exactly what gets built will be determined during the conceptual and specific site plan processes. Quality Services Performed with Pride Staff Report PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 III. PROPOSAL Currently the commercial core of Sunriver, known as the Village Mall, is planned and zoned primarily as Sunriver Commercial. SilverStar Destinations is proposing to redevelop much of the Village Mall, converting it into a mixed-use Town Center. Applicants have stated that for the estimated area of 28 acres, this proposal would replace the 150,000 square feet of existing commercial with 85,000-150,000 square feet of new commercial and would add approximately 600 new housing units. Attachment 1 is a letter from the applicants describing their proposal and responding to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Attachments 2 and 3 contain a staff summary of the proposal and staff identified policy issues. Attachments 4-8 contain the proposed new code language. In analyzing the plan and text amendments, staff considered two things. First, does the proposed code work, that is, can it be implemented. Second, what are the policy issues that need to be discussed. In addressing the first question, staff has worked with the applicant, who has repeatedly modified the proposal. In response to the second question, the policy issues were discussed at the Planning Commission public hearings. Note that Senior Planner Will Groves and Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell are actively assisting in the analysis of this proposal. This is a complex proposal that has already generated a large public record. The record to date, including public comments, additional applicant submittals and staff reports, can be found on the County Website under pending code amendments at www.deschutes.orq/cdd. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Attachment 9 contains public input received after the Planning Commission record was closed. The Planning Commission reviewed 934 comments on this proposal, including oral comments, written comments, petitions and form emails. People commenting included Sunriver homeowners who live in Sunriver, Sunriver homeowners who live elsewhere, members of the business community and people who have an interest in Sunriver. Many people have commented frequently, with some people submitting more than 15 separate comments. Staff has not identified any real consensus in the public comments, beyond the idea that there is considerable support for updating the village mall. Some people support this proposal because it will revitalize the mall. Others state that while it is not a perfect proposal, they support the trade-off of allowing increased residential to support a lively commercial area. Still others would be supportive if some changes were made, such as lowered density or heights. Finally, some people see the project as contrary to the character of Sunriver and unacceptable. So, although there appears to be support for an updated mall, the controversy is over whether this specific proposal is the best way to achieve redevelopment. The following is a brief summary of the primary concerns raised, some of which will be addressed at the conceptual site plan or site plan phase of development. 2-27-08 Page 2 Staff Report PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 • The height, density and form of development is out of scale for Sunriver • The height, density and form of development will have an impact on the environment • The height, density and form of development will have an impact on quality of life • Green space and/or open space are not required • Traffic and parking issues have not been adequately addressed, especially for the workforce needed to maintain the new development • Existing resort recreational facilities, such as pools and bicycle paths are already overcrowded and the amount of new residential will make this problem worse • Fire, water and sewer needs have not been adequately addressed • Specific properties adjacent to or nearby the proposed development would be adversely affected V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 27, 2007, which was continued until November 8, 2007 and again to December 13, 2007. The November 8 and December 13 meetings were held in Sunriver. At the meeting of December 13, the hearing was closed and the written record was kept open until 5 p.m. January 3, 2008. During the public hearing process, there was considerable give and take between the Planning Commission, the applicant and the public. The Commission and the public raised questions and concerns and the Commission allowed the applicant to respond. This process identified and clarified many of the issues with this proposal. On January 10, 2008 the Planning Commission deliberated (Attachment 10). During deliberation, a straw poll showed that without changes, 4 out of 7 Commissioners would vote to recommend denial. There was considerable dialogue on how to reduce the project impact, while still providing flexibility to the applicant. After much discussion, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of this project with the following amendments. Four changes offered by the applicants in a letter dated 12-28-07 1. 75' Height Limit: We will willingly limit the maximum size of the portion of one building that can reach this height to a floor plate of 40,000 feet 2. Live/Work Parking: We will agree to an added requirement for 0.5 parking spaces per live/work unit for guest parking. 3. Hotel Suite Density: We will agree to a maximum size of a hotel suite of (800) square feet for a hotel suite to count as 0.5 units of residential density. 4. Private Design Guidelines: We agree to add this element to the Town Center district as noted previously. Five changes outlined by the Planning Commission 1. Space available for 120,000 square feet of commercial to be retained during project phasing, not committed to other uses 2. A maximum of 500 units defined as the proposal describes 3. Underground parking in the plaza in front of the hotel 4. Parking areas are to be shown conceptually on the conceptual plan 5. A recessed first floor of the parking garage 2-27-08 Page 3 Staff Report PA -07-6 and TA -07-6 Minor technical changes requested by staff to clarify the proposed code The first three applicant proposed changes and minor technical changes have been incorporated into the draft text attached to this staff report. The fourth applicant proposed change will not be part of this text amendment, but will be part of the Sunriver Owners Association approval process. The applicant's reply to the five changes requested by the Planning Commission can be found in Attachment 1. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA Sunriver is designated by the State and County as an Urban Unincorporated Community. This proposal must be consistent with applicable State Statute, State Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative Rules and the County Comprehensive Plan. The findings prepared by the applicant (Attachment 11) address how this proposal complies with those regulations. Within the boundaries of State regulations and the County Comprehensive Plan, this proposal is essentially a policy decision. The question is whether the town center proposal is good public policy for the Sunriver community. VII. PUBLIC HEARING Staff has not yet scheduled a public hearing for this application in order to allow the Board to schedule further work sessions and/or to discuss the most appropriate time and place for a hearing. Attachments 1. Applicant letter 2. Staff proposal summary 3. Staff identified policy issues 4. Proposed text 23.40.025 5. Proposed text 18.04 6. Proposed text 18.108 7. Proposed text 18.116 8. Proposed text 18.124 9. Public input received after the Planning Commission record closed 10. Approved minutes of the Planning Commission meeting 1-10-08 11. Applicant findings 2-27-08 Page 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Text Amendment Application For: SUNRIVER TOWN CENTER Owner/Applicant: SilverStar Destinations, LLC 20022 Tumalo Road Bend, OR 97701 Contact: John Goodman Phone: (541) 848-8484 Fax: (541) 650-1527 Applicant's Representative: The Village at Sunriver 2131 NW Twilight Drive Bend, OR 97701 Contact: Mark Smuland Phone: (541) 848-0890 Fax: (541) 389-7191 Legal Counsel: Liz Fancher Attorney 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97701 Contact: Liz Fancher Phone: (541) 385-3067 Fax: (541) 385-3076 May 2007 Revised August 14, 2007 Revised October 18, 2007 Revised February 7, 2008 VILLAGE AT SUNRIVER 541.593.8704157100 Beaver Drive village@villageatsunriver.com February 6, 2008 Ms. Terri Hansen Payne Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Re: Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment-BOCC Summary Dear Terri: We would like to thank you, the rest of the Deschutes County Planning staff, the Planning Commission, the Sunriver Owners Association and the entire Sunriver community for their efforts to bring the proposed Sunriver Town Center zone to the Board of County Commissioners. Through the efforts of all of these parties, we are now closer to being able to move forward with the changes that are needed to revitalize the Sunriver community. SUNRIVER BACKGROUND Since its inception, Sunriver has been envisioned to have an active commercial core. However, changes to the demographics of Sunriver and increasing retail competition from the City of Bend and Internet commerce have left the current Sunriver Mall unable to compete in a competitive retail environment. Approximately 23% of the current (150,000) square feet of retail and commercial space is vacant in the area that is contemplated to be rezoned as Town Center. Due to these economic realities, prior Mall owners invested little in the facility. Presently, the buildings in the Mall are in a serious state of disrepair that has resulted in loss of available space, increasing vacancies, deteriorating sales and a high state of dissatisfaction within the community. After detailed evaluation with our world-renowned retail and development consultants, SilverStar Destinations determined that due to the fundamental flaws in the design of the mall, the conditions of the current structures and demographic trends in the Sunriver community and the retail industry, retrofitting or even replacing the existing structures in the Mall was not a feasible option. Redevelopment of the commercial core with a substantial residential component was deemed to be the only viable development alternative. The redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall poses a unique opportunity. Not only does Sunriver include the oldest and most recognizable resort in the Northwest, it is also a community with full- time residents who count on a commercial core for necessary stores and services. The redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall has the opportunity to create a commercial hub for not only Sunriver, but for southern Deschutes County as a whole. It will provide residential and commercial opportunities for local residents and also attract visitors from other areas of the state as well as the remainder of the state. It will provide jobs, increase tax revenue and reverse the negative economic trends that are impacting the Sunriver community. Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment-BOCC Summary 2/6/08 THE RESORT VILLAGE CONCEPT Over the past (15) years, many resort communities in North America have been developed or redeveloped. While most of the new destination resorts in Central Oregon have focused on golf courses and single-family residential development, other resorts such as Whistler (BC), Squaw Valley (CA), Northstar at Tahoe (CA), Keystone (CO), Copper Mountain (CO), Tamarack (ID) and Winter Park (CO) responded to strong demand trends by installing mixed-use "Villages." These Villages include a mix of retail, commercial and residential uses based upon the age-old model of intimate European pedestrian -based communities. These Villages have become the heart and soul of these communities, providing a variety of housing and retail options for guests while revitalizing the resort with the "energy" that drives additional guests to the resorts. In resort Villages, public spaces are created at the center of the community through the artful assembly of mixed-use structures. These public spaces are used to host public gatherings and events such as concerts, festivals and parades. The first floor of these buildings contain a strategic mix of retail and commercial tenants that caters to a wide array of guests to keep the Village full of shoppers and diners day and night. The retail space is topped with condominium residences that keep residents at the heart of the "action." They are only steps away from dining at an outdoor cafe in the Village or the other recreational amenities of the community. As shown on the conceptual Village plan included in this application, The Village at Sunriver is envisioned with a traditional "Main Street" that links public pedestrian squares. The public squares provide spaces for pedestrians to gather, rest and hold "events" in the Village. Moreover, they will allow automobile access to the retail spaces to ensure that full-time residents will have easy access to the commercial establishments during the off-peak seasons. During large-scale Village events, vehicular access to the squares can be blocked to provide larger gathering spaces. Smaller multi -family buildings will also surround the retail core and provide a transition to buffer the residential communities beyond from the increased vibrancy of the new commercial core. In order to maintain the quaint atmosphere of a pedestrian -based community, parking for the residences in the mixed-use structures is located below the buildings in enclosed parking garages. This is an expensive parking mechanism and, as such, parking is actively managed and provided in quantities that are tailored to the product sizes and the use patterns of their respective target markets. By providing a mixture of residence types with an appropriate parking supply for each unit, parking can be accommodated on site while keeping the automobile from dominating the community. For example, a family from Portland who travels together to stay in a 2 -bedroom condominium in the Village would only need one parking space and would buy or rent a residence in the core of the Village. If two families were wishing to stay in the Village and needed more parking, they could rent a larger townhome on the outskirts of the Village that would have more supplied parking. Since all of these owners or guests would be within walking distance of the commercial spaces and already have parking provided in their residences, commercial parking demand is reduced. One key to making the Village work is a multi -tiered neighborhood management structure. While a homeowner association (HOA) manages specific buildings or enclaves, a Neighborhood (master) Association owns the common land and actively manages the landscaping, streets and sidewalks and commercial parking for the Village. The Neighborhood Association is financed through assessments of all commercial space and residences. It then sponsors the festivals that bring guests to the Village. Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment-BOCC Summary 2/6/08 Strict CCRs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) control the use of the residences and commercial space including the number of automobiles that an owner and guest may park on site. Short-term residential rentals are allowed and encouraged in the Village, which allows owners to gain rental income from their residences when they cannot use them personally. The rental pool also ensures that the residences are occupied at all times of the year to ensure that the retail establishments have an on-site customer base. The synergy that is created through a sensitive Village design, active property management, a refined retail mix of tenants and higher residential occupancies will create a formula for success that does not exist in the current Sunriver Mall. Details of this design will be reviewed with public input during future development applications. PROGRESS TO DATE In December of 2006, SilverStar Destinations and the SROA Board of Directors signed a development agreement for the proposed Town Center zone. Among other things, the SROA Board agreed to bring to a vote of the Sunriver homeowners a proposed sale to SilverStar of approximately 6.2 acres of SROA land. The agreement also confirmed the strong support of the SROA of the rezoning and the proposed development project. In exchange, SilverStar Destinations agreed to restricted development standards for the proposed project and to give the SROA Board review and approval authority over applications before being submitted to the county. Based upon this agreement, SilverStar Destinations has proceeded with its development plans based upon the agreed upon standards and has purchased the majority of the property in the Mall. Over the past sixteen (16) months, SilverStar Destinations has worked with the SROA, the Sunriver community and county staff to conceive the development as articulated in the details of the submitted text amendment and in the additional drawings that have been presented to the public. Over the past five months of public hearings and work sessions, we have listened to the public and refined our proposal to. address specific concerns that have been raised. On January 10, 2008, the Deschutes County Planning Commission voted 6-1 to approve the current text amendment application with a number of conditions including changes SilverStar offered to make to address neighborhood and Commission concerns. While we don't necessarily agree that each of the additional conditions should be written into county code, we do believe that the issues need to be addressed at the proper time. Our hope is that the Board of County Commissioners can help to reach a compromise on this process that will allow SilverStar Destinations to move forward with additional land use applications that will address these issues. By working together, we can expedite the development process that will once again make the Sunriver commercial core the commercial and social hub of the community as it was originally envisioned. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS During out lengthy negotiations with the SROA Board and throughout the text amendment process, SilverStar Destinations has been candid and communicative about our intentions and the challenging economic conditions that face a redevelopment of the existing mall. We have articulated our vision with detailed design studies and have made concessions to public input wherever we possibly could. Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment-BOCC Summary 2/6/08 At the Jan. 10 Deschutes County Planning Commission meeting, the commission voted 6-1 for approval of our text amendment with the addition of five (5) conditions in addition to four (4) concessions that we made voluntarily. Three (3) of our four (4) voluntary concessions are included in the final version of the text amendment. We are currently working on private design guidelines with the SROA that will be a private agreement and not a part of the text amendment. Below are the planning commission requested conditions and our responses. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners review these responses and vote to approve the text amendment per our requests. 1. Space available for 120,000 square feet of commercial to be retained during project phasing, not committed to other uses: SilverStar Destinations signed an agreement with the SROA Board to develop a minimum of 85,000 square feet of commercial space within the Town Center zone. This figure was based upon a study by our retail experts of other resort villages. From this study, we have concluded that the commercial core in Sunriver could be vibrant and provide significant services and offerings to the community of 85,000 square feet. We have submitted into the public record the letter that we provided to the SROA in 2006 from Thomas Retail Consultants which provides detail on this issue. Included in this study is the fact that many resort villages have created a vibrant atmosphere with approximately this amount of commercial space in their mixed-use Village cores. These villages include: • River Run at Keystone • Tamarack Village Ph.1 • The Village at Mammoth: • The Village at Squaw 89,000 square feet 55,000 square feet 82,000 square feet 85,000 square feet The stated reason for the Planning Commission's requested condition of 120,000 square feet of commercial space was that this is the amount of currently -occupied space in the Mall. This does not account for the fact that many of these retailers struggle financially, and for over a decade, the mall has struggled to occupy its retail spaces. The amount of commercial space is not something that should be mandated by a public entity. The worst case scenario for the Sunriver commercial core would be to have an oversupply of commercial space that would exceed market demand, sit vacant, and decrease the vibrancy of the Village. The amount of commercial space in the Sunriver commercial core should be left to market conditions. With a minimum of 85,000 square feet, we have high confidence that we can successfully tenant and operate the Village. If the Sunriver community supports the retailers that are introduced into the Village in the early phases, we will continue to expand our commercial offerings above the 85,000 square foot minimum requirement up to the 120,000 — 150,000 square feet of space that we would like to build, and which has been provided for in our Conceptual Plan. 2. A maximum of (500) residential units defined as the proposal describes. , There are two issues to address with this condition; how to calculate density and what is the appropriate amount. First, we do not believe that a maximum number of residential units are appropriate for a zone that does not yet have a defined size. We would prefer to calculate density on the basis of the number of units per acre. Second, we believe that the proposed residential density of (22) residential units per acre is appropriate for the site. After researching the densities of many comparable communities, the SROA Board and SilverStar Destinations agreed to a cap of (22) units per acre along Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment-BOCC Summary 2/6/08 with other limits on height and zone coverage of structures. SilverStar's original proposed density was higher than this amount and more in line with other notable resort Villages as shown below: Treasure Hill, Park City, UT Revelstoke Mountain Resort Village at Mammoth (North Village) Village at Squaw Valley 33.2 units per acre 22.33 units per acre 29.4 units per acre 42.5 units per acre At a potential zone size of 26.5 acres, the planning commission recommended density of (500) units would equate to (18.87) units per acre. There was no rationale stated for choosing this number, only that it was a reduction from what was originally requested and considered a compromise. We believe that (22) residential units per acre is fair and appropriate for a number of reasons — and represents a compromise that was heavily negotiated with the SROA. First, it is less than many other comparable resort villages. These villages have proven to be successful and attractive amenities to their communities. Our lower densities will provide even less impacts on existing Sunriver residents. Second, the impacts of density are primarily from the height and mass of structures, as well as lot coverage. This has been addressed in the (3) limits of density (unit count, height, zone coverage) in our proposed text. Third, we have already promised to add private recreational facilities to the Village development which will mitigate the impacts on any other SROA recreational facilities, even thought Village owners will also be dues -paying members of the SROA. These amenities will be shown on our forthcoming Conceptual Site Plan. Based upon all of these factors, we believe that the proposed language should be approved as is at (22) residential units per acre. 3. Underground parking in the plaza in front of the hotel. The area contemplated in this condition is the area below the Events Plaza with the water feature/skating rink feature. The intent of this condition is to minimize the impacts of commercial parking on the site. As noted earlier, this is also our goal. However, this condition is once again site specific to a particular design. We have submitted conceptual drawings during the text amendment process in order to help the community understand what the implications of the Town Center zone are. This design, however, is not a part of this application. The Town Center zone language indicates that a parking plan will be submitted and approved by the county as part of the Conceptual Site Plan process. We believe that this is the appropriate time for this issue to be reviewed. Specific conditions on parking should be considered at that time. 4. Parking areas are to be shown conceptually on the conceptual site plan. This is an acceptable condition to SilverStar Destinations. 5. A recessed first floor of the parking garage. The parking garage that the planning commission is referring to was shown on a site plan that was shown by SilverStar Destinations in order to help county staff and the community understand the potential impacts of the proposed Town Center zone. This site plan is not a part of this text amendment application. Any specific parking garage design will be submitted for review and approval during the proposed Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) process as written in this text amendment. Rather than being written into code, the details of the parking garage should be evaluated with the entire parking plan. Any requirements for the parking garage can be written as a condition of any future CSP approval. As shown in our acceptance of condition number 3, we are amenable to showing all required parking during this process. Sunriver Town Center Text Amendment-BOCC Summary 2/6/08 EMERGENCY ADOPTION As part of the review of the Sunriver Town Center text amendment, SilverStar Destinations and the SROA Board request that the Board of County Commissioners invoke their option for emergency adoption for the Town Center zone. This will allow us to move forward with our next round of development applications and to provide additional information to the community on this very important project. If an emergency adoption is not invoked, we will not be able to submit our next round of applications for (90) days until the zone becomes law. During the extended planning commission process, we have had to define many elements of our proposed design which we would like to submit to county staff and the public as soon as possible. Delaying the adoption of this zone will only extend the financial hardship of the current mall's failures to the residents and business owners in Sunriver who depend upon the Village for their livelihood. In a community that currently does 80% of its business during a (3) month summer season, a (90) day delay in our progress on the Town Center can make a large difference. CONCLUSION SilverStar Destinations LLC is owned and managed by Oregonians who are either homeowners, residents and/or have vacationed in Central Oregon for many years. We are proposing this development not only as a business enterprise but also because we sincerely believe that it is in the best interests of the Sunriver community and Central Oregon as a whole. We view Sunriver as a very special place that deserves to be treated with respect. The community deserves to have this project move forward to successfully revitalize the community's core. While change is never easy, it is apparent to the majority of Sunriver home and business owners that the ideas articulated in the proposed Sunriver Town Center zone represent the best hope to provide a vibrant commercial zone that was always envisioned for the community. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment as requested and allow the improvements to begin in Sunriver without delay. Sincerely, W ------- John Goodman Managing Director SilverStar Destinations, LLC LEGEND Mixed Use Stand Alone Resident al 'Stand Alone Comme. -4a{ Existing Building Elevated Parking Structure Building Label, Typ. SSs. Develops -will S wm mo y1 Townhouse Label, Tyr . See Development Summar yi This drawing Is included at the request of the Deschutes County Planning Depart st. Itis conceptual in nature and Is only In- tended to convey general concepts relatii o the aeation of a Town Center DistrictN Sunriver. The drawing is wbiect to chang at any time. A formal design application r be made at the appropriate time. Conceptual Master Plan November 5, 2007 Stud a Attachment 2 SUMMARY OF PA -07-6 AND TA -07-6 This application proposes a new Town Center (TC) comprehensive plan and zoning district. Below is a summary of the key provisions of the proposal by code section. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 23.40.025 • Current Code: No Town Center district is defined • Proposed Code: Adds a Town Center district to the Sunriver comprehensive plan designations and adds policies that promote the applicant's vision of a mixed-use center Zoning Code Amendments 18.04.030 — Zoning Definitions • Current Code: No definitions apply only to Sunriver • Proposed Code: Adds three new definitions which apply only to the TC • Live/work residence — This definition is brief, with more detail provided in the TC Zoning • Lock -off Area — This describes multi -family residential lock -off rooms intended for temporary overnight accommodations • Mixed Use Structure — This definition is brief, with more detail provided in the Town Center Zoning • Proposed Code: Amends the current County definition of "Hotel/motel unit" to allow condominium hotels and hotel suites ■ Proposed Code: Moves the definition of "Height of building", which was out of alphabetical order. 18.108.020(B) - Zoning for Sunriver ■ Current Code: Solar setbacks apply throughout Sunriver ■ Proposed Code: Solar setbacks apply to the TC district only where the solar shadow projects outside the district 18.108.055 — Zoning for the Town Center Uses • Current Code: • Most of the area considered for the TC district is zoned Commercial, with some zoned Multi -family Residential (Abbott House Condos) and some zoned Community General • At this time it is not clear if Abbott House or the Community General areas will be included in the TC district • Commercial zoning allows a variety of commercial/office uses and a limited amount of residential • Proposed Code: • Permits a greater variety of commercial and recreational uses • Permits a greater amount of residential than is currently allowed • States that multi -family residential can not include commercial, but may include live/work or lock -off units • States that mixed use buildings can not allow more than 50% of the ground floor square footage, not devoted to parking or storage, to be residential use 2-27-08 Page 1 Attachment 2 ■ States that in mixed use buildings, the residential areas don't count when calculating commercial square footage for OAR regulations ■ States that for live/work residences the commercial area may not exceed 50% of the unit square footage, excluding the garage Heights ■ Current Commercial Code: 30' height limit ■ Proposed Code: ■ 60' height limit for mixed use structures ■ 40,000 sq ft of one mixed use building can go to 75' • All other uses 45' height limit ■ Height is defined as measured from a spot above natural grade (to account for underground parking) ■ If a building meets the height regulations, it meets the view protection requirements in DCC 18.124.060(A) Lot Requirements ■ Current Commercial Code: • Lot depth 100' ■ Front yard 10' ■ Side and rear yard none required unless next to residential then 10' minimum with increase of % foot for every foot the building is over 20' Frontage — minimum 50' ■ Proposed Code: ■ No lot depth • Front yard 10' - does not apply to below grade parking structures and if a lot has more than one front yard the 10' only applies to one of the front yards ■ No side or rear yard requirement • Frontage — each lot shall have access to parking, driveways and a private road through a perpetual easement District Setbacks ■ Current Commercial Code: No district setbacks ■ Proposed Code: Setbacks are defined only for structures on the Town Center boundary • If the building borders a commercial district, then a 5' setback applies ■ If the building borders any other zoning, then there is a minimum 10' setback, increasing as the height of the building increases ■ Paths, driveways, street trees and so on are allowed in the setbacks Residential Density ■ Current Commercial Code: No density defined, limited residential permitted ■ Proposed Code: ■ Overall 22 units/gross acre ■ Residential dwelling units, hotel units and lock off areas all count as 1 unit except ■ For the first hotel (up to 100 units) each unit not exceeding 800 sq ft counts as 0.5 units ■ For the first 200 multi -family units with lock -off areas, each lock -off unit counts as 0.5 units Zone Coverage ■ Current Commercial Code: None defined ■ Proposed Code: • Buildings and enclosed structures are limited to 50% of the TC gross acreage ■ Multi -family residential can occupy a maximum of 20% of the TC gross acreage 2-27-08 Page 2 Attachment 2 • What constitutes a building or enclosed structure is defined to exclude items such as eaves, driveways, plazas or porches less than 12" above finished grade Process • Current Commercial Code: At minimum a site plan is required • Proposed Code: A conceptual site plan is required that will • Provide an overview of the locations of proposed land uses • Include all land under one ownership and depict uses on land under separate ownership • Show specified items on the conceptual site plan as defined in code • Proposed Code: Site specific site plans follow approval of the conceptual plan and must demonstrate compliance with the conceptual site plan • Proposed Code: Each site-specific site plan approval must demonstrate a defined ratio between commercial and residential development 18.116.030 — Parking Requirements • Current Code: Lists residential parking requirements • Proposed Code: • Proposes reduced parking for residential in the TC district • Proposes parking for mixed use structures that is lower than the proposed residential requirements • Adds an additional 0.5 parking requirement for lock -off areas and live/work units • Adds language to permit parking reductions with a Transportation Demand Management plan • Allows tandem parking for residential units 18.124.070 — Site Plan Minimum Standards • Current Code: Requires private and shared outdoor space for multi -family residential • Proposed Code: Exempts the Town Center district from providing outdoor private space in ground level residential units and usable outdoor shared recreation space in residential developments • Current Code: Requires new commercial buildings to be located at the setback lines • Proposed Code: Adds the Town Center to areas where new commercial buildings do not have to be located at the setback line 2-27-08 Page 3 Attachment 3 SUNRIVER TOWN CENTER STAFF DEFINED POLICY ISSUES POLICY DISCUSSION • Solar exemption is not uncommon in urban areas ■ Buildings outside the district will still be protected by the solar setback • Proposal includes a strong residential component • Proposal allows up to 50% of the mixed use ground floor space to be residential ■ Proposal allows mixed use ground floor space to also include parking and storage • No park or recreation space is required ■ Proposal is a considerable increase in permitted height • Proposal allows an urban level residential density • Hotel units and lock -off units count into density calculations • No specific requirement is proposed for green space or open space ■ Proposed site plan amendment removes the requirements for private and shared residential outdoor space Parking • No reduced parking or tandem • Reduces required residential parking ■ Proposal allows reduced residential parking allowed • Permits residential tandem parking parking for high density development • Reductions/adjustments can be made • Other parking reductions would be if there is a Transportation Demand approved through a TDM Management (TDM) plan PROPOSAL • Apply solar setbacks only when the solar shadow projects outside the Town Center district • Mix of commercial, residential, live - work, mixed-use, hotel, recreation • Most uses 45', mixed-use 60' with part of 1 building 75' • Exempts buildings from the view protection requirements in the site plan review section • Allows a density of 22 units/acre (approximately 600 units) • First hotel built — each unit not over 800 sq ft counts as 0.5 unit • First 200 multifamily units with lock -offs count as 1.5 unit • Structures on no more than 50% of the gross acreage • Multi -family on no more than 20% of the gross acreage EXISTING • Solar setbacks apply • Primarily small-scale commercial and office uses • Abbott House residential is zoned multi -family but located in the proposed town center area • 30' height limit • Limited residential allowed above commercial 0---iN°C.) Solar Setbacks Height SUNRIVER MALL APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT I. REQUEST In this legislative action, Applicant requests approval of an amendment to the County's comprehensive plan text, and amendments to the County's zoning code to create a new zoning district, the Town Center District. The new zoning district is designed for use in the commercial core area of the urban unincorporated community of Sunriver, located approximately 15 miles south of Bend off Highway 97. The property contemplated for future application of this district is near the southern entrance to Sunriver (the "Property"). Attached to this narrative as Exhibit A is a site map that depicts the boundaries of the Property. This map shows properties that may, in a later proceeding, be found to be eligible for Town Center zoning. The bulk of the parcels that make up the Property are located in the area currently referred to as the "Sunriver Mall." Those parcels are currently designated Commercial. The map includes three parcels that are not currently designated Commercial. One parcel (Parcel 12 on Exhibit A) is designated Multi - Family Residential and two parcels (Parcels 5 and 15) are designated Community General. II. SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION Sunriver is located in the central portion of Deschutes County, approximately 15 miles south of the city limits of Bend. Sunriver lies in the Upper Deschutes River Basin, with the Deschutes River generally forming the western boundary of the community. Sunriver includes approximately 3,374 acres which are bounded by the Deschutes National Forest on the east, west and north sides. Small lot residential subdivision development is the predominant land use to the south of the community boundary. However, Crosswater, a private residential/resort community has also recently been developed in the area immediately south of Sunriver. The Property is located near the center of Sunriver. It is bordered by Abbott Drive on the south and west; by Beaver Drive on the east and by residential property on the north. The largest component of the property is that area historically referred to as the Sunriver Village Mall. The Village Mall was developed as an outdoor pedestrian mall and includes a variety of commercial uses. The Property includes the commercial areas east of the Village Mall between Mall Drive and Beaver Drive. The only residential property included in the proposal is Parcel 12, which contains the Abbott House Condominiums. They are immediately adjacent to the Village Mall. The Property includes two parcels currently zoned Community General. They are along Abbott Drive near the entrance of the Village Mall and are undeveloped. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 1 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE III. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION In an effort to protect and enhance the commercial core area of Sunriver, the Applicant is asking the County to adopt a new zoning district for Sunriver known as the Town Center District. The purpose of this new district is to strengthen the commercial core area as the heart of the community, improving its economic base and enhancing its appearance through high quality design and construction. The new Town Center District will include a variety of residential and commercial uses which will complement the existing features of Sunriver and strengthen its character as a vacation destination and resort community. The Applicant's current proposal has two parts. First, the Applicant is requesting a legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to provide for the creation of the new Town Center District in the Sunriver Unincorporated Community. Second, the Applicant is proposing a legislative text amendment to the Deschutes County Code to add the Town Center District to DCC Chapter 18.108. The new zoning district would be numbered DCC 18.108.055. The proposed land uses that will be allowed in the Town Center District are identified in the proposed Town Center district code language included with the application. The addition of a new zoning district requires minor text changes to the existing Sections 18.108.010 and 18.108.020. Finally, to accommodate some of the uses permitted in the Town Center District, amendments are proposed to parking requirements in DCC 18.116 and to site plan requirements of DCC 18.124. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. Applicable Approval Criteria. Pursuant to ORS 197.610, a local government may amend its comprehensive plan if, in doing so, it complies with the requirements in ORS 197.610 through 197.625. The Applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and the administrative rules interpreting them. B. Responses to Approval Criteria. 1. The Proposed Amendment Complies with Relevant State Statutes ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625 contain the procedures a local government must follow to amend its comprehensive plan. Pursuant to ORS 197.610, in cases where the Statewide Planning Goals apply to the proposal, at least 45 days prior to the County conducting the first hearing on the proposal, the County must submit the proposal to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development. A number of the Statewide Planning Goals apply to the Applicant's proposal and, therefore, the County must submit the proposal to the Director. The Applicant understands that the County is prepared to do so. Accordingly, this approval criteria will be met. ORS 197.615 requires the County to submit to the Director a notice of any amendment that the County adopts. This criteria can also be met. ORS 197.620 and 197.625 do not contain any requirements that serve as approval criteria. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 2 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 2. The Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Complies with Statewide Planning Goals a. Statewide Planning Goals. In order for a county to amend its comprehensive plan, state law requires that it make findings of compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines contained in OAR 660-015-0000. Each Statewide Planning Goal is addressed below: (1) Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The purpose of Goal 1 is to develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The County has a development code with procedures and processes that insure citizens have the opportunity to be involved in all land use matters. The application process for this proposal will follow the County's adopted process and procedures. Notices of hearings will be posted and mailed as required and the public will be provided opportunities to participate in public hearings. (2) Goal 2: Land Use Planning. The purpose of Goal 2 is to establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Goal 2 contains the standards local governments must meet when they adopt exceptions to any of the Statewide Goals. The County's Comprehensive Plan currently complies with the requirements of Goal 2 and has been acknowledged as doing so. The proposal is being made under the procedures provided for in the current plan and its implementing ordinances by requiring the Applicant to prove compliance with all required approval criteria. Because the Applicant's request does not involve adding any land to the Sunriver Unincorporated Community, the Applicant does not have to demonstrate compliance with the exception criteria in Statewide Planning Goal 2. (3) Goal 3: Agricultural Lands. The purpose of Goal 3 is to preserve agricultural lands. The proposal does not include any property designated as agricultural. The goal of preserving agricultural land will not be adversely impacted by the proposal. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 3 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (4) Goal 4: Forest Lands. The purpose of Goal 4 is to conserve forestlands 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. The proposal does not include any property designated as forest land. The goal of preserving forest land will not be adversely impacted by the proposal. (5) Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The purpose of Goal 5 is to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The County's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Property as being part of an urban unincorporated community and not as being within designated natural resource, scenic or historic areas. The property is not designated as open space although it has open spaces set aside within its boundaries. The proposal will preserve open spaces within the property. (6) Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resource Quality. The purpose of Goal 6 is to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. The requirement of this goal is that any waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with existing development, shall not exceed the carrying capacity of air, water and land resources. The proposal will result in a different zone being applied to the Property, but the uses that will be developed under the new zone will be comparable to the uses currently developed. Currently the uses on the property are primarily commercial with limited residential development, and are served by a community water and waste treatment facility. Uses allowed under the proposal will add residential components to commercial uses, but not to a level that will exceed the capacity of the current systems. The private utility will have to confirm capacity prior to approval of new development, which will ensure that the proposal will not result in development that will exceed the carrying capacity of the land. natural hazards. (7) Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. The purpose of Goal 7 is to protect people and property from PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 4 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE The site contains no identified natural hazards and is not within any 100 -year flood plain. The adoption of the Tourist Commercial district will not materially alter the danger presented by wildfire. The amendment will allow for the construction of taller buildings but the County's codes impose requirements to limit risks of harm caused by wildfire. The Town Center zone imposes a limit on the density of residential development in the Town Center district. The existing Commercial district and the State UUC law do not impose limits on the density of residential development. Additionally, the County's building codes and fire code regulations require fire hydrants and sprinklers to protect the buildings in the Town Center district. The County code also requires 15% landscaping and roads and hard surfaces in the district will help slow the spread of fire. The Sunriver Owners Association plans to install a new roundabout at Beaver Drive and the entrance road to Sunriver to improve traffic flows for the Town Center and area homes. The improved road access will make it easier for Sunriver and Town Center residents to evacuate from the Town Center and Sunriver in the event of wildfire. Two other routes that lead to the north entrance to Sunriver are also available for use by new residents of the Town Center in the event of a fire emergency. Sunriver, also, is prepared to handle the risks presented by wildfire. In 2005, the Sunriver Owners Association, Sunriver Fire Department, Oregon Department of Forestry, US Forest Service, Deschutes County and Central Oregon Fire Management completed a Community Fire Plan. This plan is a comprehensive plan that outlines area fuel thinning priorities for consideration by federal land managers. The plan includes the Sunriver Ladder Fuels Reduction Plan. According to information published by Deschutes County, the plan meets or exceeds the intent of the Oregon Forestland - Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997 and the Uniform Fire Code. (8) Goal 8: Recreational Needs. The purpose of Goal 8 is 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. This unincorporated community of Sunriver exists, in large part, to provide varied recreational activities to residents and visitors. Sunriver and its surrounding areas provide an abundance of opportunities to hike, bike, golf, fish, swim, play tennis, picnic, canoe, boat, raft and countless other recreational activities. The proposal will not result in an excessive demand for activities that would create the need for more facilities. The proposal will enhance the opportunity for people to use the existing facilities. (9) Goal 9: Economic Development. The purpose of Goal 9 is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 5 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE The proposal will re -vitalize and enhance the existing commercial core of Sunriver encouraging economic development. By adding residential and mixed use development, the proposal will bring people to the core commercial area on a more constant basis promoting the commercial uses that exist. It will also encourage new commercial uses to locate in the core commercial area providing jobs. (10) Goal 10: Housing. The purpose of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Sunriver was not developed to meet any specific housing needs in the County, but as a recreational development. Sunriver contains a mix of full time residents, people who own vacation homes that they use periodically and visitors who rent accommodations. The proposal will not negatively impact the County's ability to provide adequate housing. If anything, the proposal will add residential units to Sunriver. A number of the residential units will be fractionally owned, which makes it more affordable for people to buy them and thus, use the facilities at Sunriver. (11) Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services. The purpose of Goal 11 is 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. The water, sewer and storm water facilities within Sunriver are privately owned and operated. Thus, the proposal will not result in any excessive demand on those public facilities. The streets within Sunriver are also private. Thus, the proposal will not result in excessive demand on public streets within Sunriver. The impact of the proposal on public transportation facilities outside of Sunriver is addressed below. (12) Goal 12: Transportation. The purpose of Goal 12 is to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The purpose of Goal 12 is to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented throughout the Transportation Planning Rule set out in OAR 660-12-0060. Transportation Planning Rule OAR Section 660-12-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR") sets forth the relative criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments. Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 6 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); Response: The proposed text amendments do not seek to change the functional classification of any transportation facility in the vicinity of the site. (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or Response: The proposed text amendments will not change standards implementing a functional classification system. (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Response: The text amendments, if approved, will not apply to any land until a subsequent land use review process is completed. Until that time, it is unknown if some, all or none of the area that the Applicant believes is suited for inclusion in the Town Center District will be rezoned and redesignated for Town Center development. As a result, the appropriate time to apply this part of the rule is when the new text is applied to land. Until that time, it is not possible for any Town Center District development to occur. As a result, none of the actions that would violate these standards will be caused by adoption of the proposed text amendments. The Applicant recognizes that transportation system improvements may be needed if the proposed zoning is applied to all land in the Sunriver Village area. The Applicant is PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 7 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE working with County and ODOT staff to address the requirement of this rule that will apply when the property is rezoned to the new Town Center District. (13) Goal 13: Energy Conservation. The purpose of Goal 13 is to conserve energy. The County's building code specifies the requirements for buildings as it relates to energy conservation. The proposal will result in development that must still comply with County building codes and thus, will be consistent with this goal. (14) Goal 14: Urbanization. The purpose of Goal 14 is 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. The policy behind this goal is to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use and to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land and to provide for livable communities. The proposed amendment will not result in the use of rural lands for urban uses. Sunriver is an existing urban community already containing urban uses. The proposal will promote more desirable urban uses and a wider variety of those uses. The proposal will allow for slightly more dense development promoting the efficient use of the existing commercial core in Sunriver and enhance the commercial area. (15) Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway. The purpose of Goal 15 is to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 does not apply to this application because the Property does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal. (16) Goal 16: Estuarine Resources. The purpose of Goal 16 is to recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 8 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Goal 16 does not apply to this application because the Property does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal. (17) Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands. The purpose of Goal 17 is to conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal Shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water -dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat resulting form the use and enjoyment of Oregon's coastal shorelands. Goal 17 is not applicable to this application because the Property does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal. (18) Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes. The purpose of Goal 18 is to conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man -induced actions associated with these areas. Goal 18 is not applicable to this application because the Property does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal. (19) Goal 19: Ocean Resources. The purpose of Goal 19 is to conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations. Goal 19 is not applicable to this application because the Property does not lie within the geographic area addressed in this Goal. b. Oregon Administrative Rules. In order to amend its comprehensive plan, the County must also adopt findings of compliance with those administrative rules that implement the Statewide Planning Goals. The applicable administrative rules are located in Chapter 660 -Land Conservation and Development Department. Chapter 660, Division 12 -Transportation Planning contains the "transportation planning rule" and must be addressed when the new zoning district is applied to land in Sunriver. OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 -Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 9 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE must also be addressed. Finally, OAR Chapter 660, Division 22 -Unincorporated Communities must be addressed. (1) OAR Chapter 660, Division 12 -Transportation. In addressing how the proposal complies with Statewide Planning Goal 12 above, the Applicant has adequately addressed this approval criteria. (2) OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 -Plan Amendment and Land Use Regulation Amendment Rule. OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 implements ORS 197.610 through 197.625. Division 18 requires local governments to submit any non-exempt proposed amendment to its comprehensive plan to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") at least forty-five (45) days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. Division 18 also contains the procedural steps local governments and the DLCD are to follow, the notices required and the appeal rights. The County's procedural rules provide that it will submit the requested amendment to the Director more than forty-five (45) days prior to the evidentiary hearing on adoption. The County intends to comply with all of the procedural requirements in Chapter 660, Division 18. Thus, this criterion is satisfied. (3) OAR Chapter 660, Division 22 -Unincorporated Communities. The substantive requirements in Division 22 are located in 660- 022 -0030 -Planning and Zoning of Unincorporated Communities. An amendment to the County's comprehensive plan must be consistent with the applicable provisions of that section. The current Commercial district in Sunriver allows residential units in a nine -acre part of the Commercial district and in dwelling units located above commercial uses. The Town Center zone continues to allow for residential development in the Town Center but proposes to remove the 9 acre limit on residential development in residential only buildings. The current Commercial District in Sunriver allows large scale buildings to be constructed in Commercial District. The Town Center district will also allow large scale buildings when the development meets the requirements of the State administrative rule. The restrictions of the administrative rule are incorporated into the County's Town Center zoning district, as they were for the Commercial District. (1) For rural communities, resort communities and urban unincorporated communities, counties shall adopt individual plan and zone designations reflecting the projected use for each property (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, public) for all land in each community. Changes in plan or zone designation shall follow PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 10 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE the requirements to the applicable post -acknowledgement provisions of ORS 197.610 through 197.625. Response: Sunriver is an unincorporated community. The County has adopted an individual comprehensive plan section for Sunriver and an individual zoning code section. The current proposal to amend those sections is being processed consistent with ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625, as explained in Section B.1 above. (2) County plans and land use regulations may authorize any residential use and density in unincorporated communities, subject to the requirements of this division. Response: The residential uses that will be permitted under the proposed amendment are consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-022-0300. Sunriver is an urban unincorporated community. Opponents have claimed that the density of development in the TC zone is too dense and is not appropriate for an unincorporated community. This part of the Statewide Goal rules makes it clear, however, that this argument is without merit. This rule makes it clear that any residential density is allowed in an unincorporated community. The density limit proposed by the applicant, therefore, does not violate the applicable law. (3) County plans and land use regulations may authorize only the following new or expanded industrial uses in unincorporated communities: * * * Response: The proposal does not include any industrial uses. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. (4) County plans and land use regulations may authorized only the following new commercial uses in unincorporated communities: (a) Uses authorized under Goals 3 and 4; (b) Small-scale, low impact uses; (c) Uses intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. Response: The proposed comprehensive plan text amendment expressly provides that commercial uses that can be permitted in the proposed Town Center District are small scale, low impact uses or large scale uses that will serve the community and surrounding rural area, or the travel needs of people passing through the area. Further, the proposed text amendment to the development code to create the Town Center District contains provisions requiring that any large scale commercial development meet the standards in this section. Most of the commercial uses allowed in the Town Center zoning district are already allowed in the Commercial zoning district and are existing uses. The existing uses are not subject to review for compliance with this rule as they are not "new PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 11 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE uses." The proposed comprehensive plan text amendment is written to require that all new commercial uses fit into one of the three categories listed in the administrative rule, above. First, the Town Center zone limits commercial uses to small-scale, low impact uses unless it is demonstrated that the use proposed is intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. Small-scale, low impact uses are those that take place in a commercial building of 8,000 square feet or smaller. OAR 660-022-0030(10). Sunriver may also provide commercial uses in larger commercial buildings if the uses are intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. The Town Center district imposes the following requirement on commercial and commercial recreational uses to assure compliance with this part of the administrative rule: C. Special Requirements for Large Scale Uses. Any of the uses listed in DCC 18.108.055(A)(5) or (A)(8) may be allowed in a building or buildings each exceeding 8,000 square feet offloor space if the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds: 1. That the intended customers for the proposed use will come from the Sunriver community and surrounding rural area. The surrounding rural area is the area identified as all property within five miles of the boundary of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community; or 2. The use will meet the needs of the people passing through the area. This text requires a review of new commercial uses to assure that the uses will meet the requirements of this code before they may be established in a building that is larger than 8,000 square feet. For instance, the community's grocery store is planning to occupy a new building in the Town Center. It requires a building that is larger than 8,000 square feet. It is a use that meets the needs of the Sunriver community and surrounding rural area as it supplies groceries to Sunriver area residents. The County's Planning Director or Hearings Officer will, however, make this determination during review of the Conceptual Site Plan and Site Plan for the grocery store. (5) County plans and land use regulations may authorize hotels and motels in unincorporated communities only if served by a community sewer system and only as provided in subsections (a) through (c) of this section: * * * (c) New motels and hotels up to 100 units may be allowed in any urban unincorporated community that is at lest 10 miles from any urban growth boundary. Response: The proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan will allow for the creation of a Town Center District. Hotels with up to 100 units will be a use allowed in that zone. The County's acknowledged plan states that Sunriver is 12 miles from the closest urban growth boundary (Bend); therefore, hotels permitted by the proposal will be consistent with this section. Hotel units are not commercial uses for purposes of this administrative rule. Instead, they are authorized and regulated separately from PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 12 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE commercial uses. Hotel units, however, meet the needs of people passing through the area. These persons need overnight accommodations. Highway 97 is nearby. It is used for long-distance, overnight travel. In this setting it is clear that hotels meet the needs of travelers. (6) County plans and land use regulations shall ensure that new or expanded uses authorized within unincorporated communities do not adversely affect agricultural or forestry uses. Response: The proposal will allow for the creation of a Town Center District. This district is designed for use in the commercial core of Sunriver. Currently, the development in that area is isolated from any agricultural and forestry uses and thus, does not adversely affect either use. The creation of a Town Center District in the same area that will contain similar commercial uses will likewise not adversely affect any agricultural or forestry uses. (7) County plans and land use regulations shall allow only those uses which are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of transportation facilities serving the community, pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a) through (c). Response: The proposed Town Center District will allow for principally small scale commercial development, some large scale commercial development and residential development. Although some of the uses may be combined in a mixed use development, the uses are comparable in intensity to the uses currently in existence. For that reason, the proposed uses are consistent with the current identified function, capacity and level of service of transportation facilities serving Sunriver. The Applicant recognizes that if the Town Center District is eventually applied to all property eligible for that designation, mitigation may be required to assure that some transportation facilities continue to function at acceptable levels. The Applicant is working with the County to identify the potential mitigation that may be required in the event that the Town Center designation is applied to all eligible properties. (8) Zoning applied to lands within unincorporated communities shall ensure that the cumulative development: (a) Will not result in public health hazards or adverse environmental impacts that violate state or federal water quality regulations; and Response: The proposed Town Center District will allow for principally small scale commercial development, some large scale commercial development and residential development. None of the allowed development would pose a public health hazard or adverse environmental impact. None of the permitted uses will emit hazardous material into the air or water and thus, would not violate any state or federal water quality regulations. (b) Will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of existing water supply resources and sewer services. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 13 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Response: The proposal will result in a different zone being applied to the Property, although at this time, it is uncertain that it will be applied to all of the Property. In any event, the types of uses that will be developed under the new zone will be comparable to the uses currently developed. Currently the uses on the property are commercial and are served by a community water and waste treatment facility. Uses allowed under the proposal will add residential components to commercial uses, but not to a level that will exceed the capacity of the current systems. The private utility will have to confirm capacity prior to approval of any development proposal, which will ensure that the proposal will not result in development that will exceed the carrying capacity of the land. (9) County plans and land use regulations for lands within unincorporated communities shall be consistent with acknowledge metropolitan regional goals and objectives, applicable regional functional plans and regional framework plan components of metropolitan service districts. Response: The current comprehensive plan is consistent with all regional plans. The proposed amendment will allow for an additional zoning district, the Town Center District, that will contain uses largely similar to the uses already existing within the relevant part of the Sunriver community. None of the uses allowed by the proposed amendment would cause the comprehensive plan to be inconsistent with any regional plans. (10) For purposes of subsection (b) of section (4) of this rule, a small-scale, low impact commercial use is one which takes place in an urban unincorporated community in a building or building not exceeding 8,000 square feet of floor space, or in any other type of unincorporated community in a building or buildings not exceeding 4,000 square feet of floor space. Response: The proposed text amendment provides that commercial development in the proposed Town Center District must be in conformance with OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. In addition, the proposed text for the Town Center District incorporates the standard set forth above. (11) For purposes of subsection (c) of section (3) of this rule, a small-scale, low impact industrial use is one which takes place in an urban unincorporated community in a building or buildings not exceeding 60,000 square feet of floor space, or in any other type of unincorporated community in a building or buildings not exceeding 40,000 square feet of floor space. Response: Sunriver is an urban unincorporated community. The proposed Town Center District text includes the above limitation. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 14 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE V. DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT A. Applicable Approval Criteria. The Applicant is proposing to amend three chapters in the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). First, the Applicant is proposing to amend DCC 18.108 to add a new zoning district to those that exist within the Sunriver Unincorporated Community. The new district will be the "Town Center District" and will be designated as Section 18.108.055. As described previously, the proposed Town Center District is designed to revitalize the commercial core of Sunriver. The proposed text for the Town Center District will permit a mix of residential and commercial uses that will serve the needs of the residents of Sunriver and people who visit. The proposed district will permit development that is more concentrated and intense than the existing uses, but are necessary to create the vibrant feel the Applicant believes is necessary to revitalize the area. The creation of the Town Center District will require limited amendments to other sections within Chapter 18.108. Section 18.108.010, the purpose statement, must be amended to reflect 17 zoning districts rather than 16. Section 18.108.020(A) must be amended to add the Town Center District as one of the districts subject to the approvals set forth in that section. Finally, the Applicant is proposing amendments to the solar setback requirements referred to in Section 18.108.020(B). The Applicant is proposing that the solar setback requirements in Section 18.116.180 only apply to the exterior boundary of the Town Center District and not to the interior lot lines. The type of development required to create the vibrant town center atmosphere cannot be accomplished if the solar setbacks apply to interior lot lines. Second, the Applicant is proposing an amendment to DCC 18.116.030 to reduce the parking spaces required within the Town Center District to match the needs of a mixed use resort town center. Third, the Applicant is proposing minor changes to DCC 18.124.070 to eliminate conflicts with the proposed text of the Town Center District. Specifically, development within the Town Center District will not have to meet the requirement of outdoor private space or shared outdoor recreation space, because the District relies upon district -wide open space for those purposes. Also, commercial buildings within the Town Center District will not be subject to DCC 18.124.070 D because the District requires a 10 -ft. setback. The proposed text amendments must comply with the post -acknowledgement provisions of ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625 and the County's comprehensive plan. To allow for the text amendment to the DCC, the Applicant has proposed amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. Thus, it is appropriate to assess the proposed text amendments to the DCC against the comprehensive plan as it would appear if amended. B. Response to Approval Criteria. 1. The proposed text amendment complies with relevant State statutes. As explained above in Section B.1, the Applicant's request is being processed consistent with ORS 197.610 through ORS 197.625, with all of the required notices to the Director of the DLCD. This criterion will be met. No proposed change violates a State statute. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 15 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 2. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant's proposed amendment must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the County's comprehensive plan. The most relevant section is Section 23.40.025, which is the section specific to the Sunriver Unincorporated Community. a. 23.40.025 Sunriver Unincorporated Community. Following the LCDC's adoption of OAR 660-22—Unincorporated Communities in 1994, the County designated Sunriver as an urban unincorporated community. As part of that process, the County updated its comprehensive plan and the zoning regulations for Sunriver to be consistent with OAR 660-22. The zoning regulations adopted for Sunriver at that time were consistent with the County's comprehensive plan. The current proposal will add one zoning district, the Town Center District. The text of that proposed district is consistent with Section 23.40.025 of the County's comprehensive plan and will not create any inconsistency with other sections of the County's plan. One of the reasons the County decided to classify Sunriver as an urban unincorporated community was because that designation offered the greatest practical degree of flexibility for future growth and development in Sunriver. The commercial core of Sunriver, commonly referred to as the Village Mall, is decaying. The Village Mall lacks the diversity of uses that will attract visitors and businesses which create the vibrant commercial area desired by both residents and visitors. The creation of a Town Center District that permits a variety of uses, including mixed residential/commercial uses, will bring people to the central core. The increase in the number of people coming to the core will support desirable retail businesses, create employment opportunities and enhance the appearance of the commercial core. Thus, the creation of the Town Center District is consistent with the designation of Sunriver as an urban unincorporated community. The proposed text amendments to DCC 18.108.010 and 18.108.020 will make those sections consistent with adding a new zoning district and assure that uses in the Town Center District are subject to site plan review when the Town Center designation is applied to specific property. The proposed text amendment to DCC 18.116.030 will provide needed flexibility in the County's parking requirements to facilitate the type of uses that are in a Town Center development. A Town Center style of development is less reliant on parking than most other development and can employ alternative methods to meet parking demands. Finally, the proposed text amendment to DCC 18.124.070 makes the site plan review criteria consistent with the substantive development standards for the Town Center District. Section 23.40.025 E.1(d) contains the land use policies for the Town Center District. The proposed text for the Town Center District permits the types and mixture of uses identified in that section, subject to the limitations and restrictions derived form OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. The development standards contained in the proposed Town Center District will encourage new development that is compatible with a town center style of PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 16 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE development, but will preserve open space by promoting an efficient use of land. The policies for land use in Section 23.40.025 E.1(d) will be met. Section 23.40.025 E.2 contains the public facilities policies for Sunriver. The services within Sunriver commonly thought of as public facilities are supplied by the Sunriver Utility Company. Before any new use is approved in the Town Center District, the Sunriver Utility Company will need to confirm the availability of water and sewer service. 3. Other Comprehensive Plan Provisions. The approval of the proposed text amendments to add the Town Center District will not create any inconsistency with other provisions of the comprehensive plan. Those provisions of the comprehensive plan that may be impacted by the text amendment are set forth below: a. Urbanization. The area that will be included within the Town Center District is already committed to urban development. The amendment will not be inconsistent with this section. b. Economy. The proposed text amendments will allow for more diverse development that will create additional opportunities for businesses within Sunriver. It will enhance the economy. c. Transportation. The transportation element of the County's comprehensive plan is primarily definitional and does not contain text that serves as relevant approval criteria. d. Transportation System Plan. The County's Transportation System Plan is written to implement OAR 660, Division 12 (the "Transportation Planning Rule"). The creation of a new Town Center District in the abstract will not impact the County's Transportation Plan because the zone will not be applied to any specific property until subsequent land use applications are processed. The most appropriate time to examine whether uses allowed under the Town Center District have an impact on transportation facilities and whether specific mitigation is required, is when those subsequent applications are submitted. The Applicant is working with the County to assess the possible impacts of potential development assuming that the Town Center District is applied to all property eligible for such designation and believes appropriate mitigation is available. e. Public Facilities and Services. Prior to any new development occurring under the proposal, the Sunriver Utility Company must assure available facilities and services. Thus, this element of the comprehensive plan will be satisfied. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 17 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE f. Recreation. The proposal will not overburden the existing recreational facilities and will encourage people to visit Sunriver to enjoy the existing recreational opportunities. g. Energy. The Town Center District standards promote a clustered, more dense development with multiple uses in close proximity to one another. Visitors and residents will combine activities with a single trip to the town center and thus, save energy. h. Citizen Involvement. All development under the Town Center District must undergo a conceptual site plan process and site plan review. Some uses require conditional use approval. Those processes are public and allow for citizen involvement. 4. Parking Requirements. Applicant is requesting modifications to the off-street parking requirements for residential uses within the Town Center District. Applicant is proposing a new section that applies only in the Town Center District and would be 18.116.030.D.9. This proposal is described in the text amendment documents that the applicant has filed with the County and refined during the course of the land use hearings related to this proposal. In addition, Applicant is proposing amendments to various provisions within DCC 18.116.030.E. a. Applicant's Support for Proposed Amendments. Applicant's consultants have reviewed parking requirements for the Town Center (TC) District with planning staff and agree that the methodology for determining appropriate parking supply should be based on standard resources, such as the ITE Parking Generation manual (Reference 1). However, as discussed in the manual, Applicant believes that other resources and factors should also be considered. On page 2, the manual states: "Parking Generation is only the beginning point of information to be used in estimating parking demand. Local conditions and area type can influence parking demand. Parking Generation's wide array of data blends many site conditions and may not best reflect local conditions....It represents only the beginning of information that may be necessary to accurately determine what the parking demand may be for a specific land use given unique site characteristics." The proposed Town Center District is intended to be a mix of interrelated land uses, specifically identified, designed, and developed to be mutually supportive. Considerable efficiency in parking is to be expected because the economic viability of the district depends to a large degree PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page l8 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE on internalized demand for restaurant and retail activities. The Parking Generation manual briefly addresses the potential benefits of mixed use developments in Appendix B. The manual states the following: "The hourly variation in parking demand for the individual land uses can result in conditions where the parking demand for one land use is high while the demand for a different land use is low....The end result can be a reduction in overall peak parking demand." Further, the manual references the reference book, Shared Parking, by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) as a resource for estimating parking demand for mixed use developments. The proposed methodology identifies both the ITE Parking Generation manual and the ULI Shared Parking book as appropriate references that should guide the parking needs estimates for specific developments. Applicant believes it has proposed a methodology for estimating parking needs in unique development conditions, while maintaining the opportunity and authority for staff to ensure that reasonable standards and resources are applied. In this way, Applicant seeks to provide flexibility in a manner that still provides certainty to the County. The first step in the proposed methodology is to identify the appropriate minimum parking ratio to be applied. Deschutes County code has minimum parking ratios for residential development; however, this code does not take into account the use patterns of a mixed-use, condo -hotel resort village for which our Town Center District has been patterned. Included in the attached Table 1 above are the parking requirements for resort developments (Telluride, CO; Copper Mountain, CO; Keystone, CO; Scottsdale, AZ; and Steamboat Springs, CO) that have been developed in a similar manner. These communities typically have two types of residential units: multi -family townhomes developed on the outskirts of the mixed-use core and condo -hotel units developed above first floor retail space. The townhomes are larger and cater to those buyers who want more space and have higher parking requirements than hotel or condominium buyers. However, the townhomes still function as vacation homes due to their resort location and have lower parking needs than full-time residences located away from resort communities. The condo -hotel units are smaller in size and cater to vacation users who want to be at the center of the retail activity in the resort community. These users typically either drive a single car or take a shuttle from the airport since they can walk, bike or ride a resort shuttle to their activities which are all located in close proximity to the village. The condo -hotel units are specifically designed and operated to allow purchasers to place their residence into a rental pool. The rental pool serves to keep "warm beds" in the village to provide a resident population to provide customers for the retail space. Parking for these residences is placed directly beneath the structures and is not deeded to individual residences to allow parking to be shared and managed when the building are not completely occupied. Parking restrictions are written into the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the building and articulated to each renter at the time that a rental agreement is signed. The parking requirements proposed for the Town Center District are based on the experiences of this wide array of resort PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 19 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE communities. Applicant believes that its methodology and conclusions support its proposed amendments to DCC 18.116.30. PDX 1666505v5 0058276-000206 Page 20 — SUNRIVER MALL - APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Attachment 9 Public Comments received between 9 a.m. 1/2/08 and 5 p.m. 1/3/08 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Jeff & Denise Swedlund [sweds@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:29 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: info@thevillageatsunriver.com Subject: We Want A new Sunriver Village""I'I Dear Terri Payne, We have been home owners in Sunriver for over 5 years. We have watched the deterioration of the mall over this time. The need for a changed mall is very necessary to the heart of SUNRIVER. Please approve the zoning change proposed by SilverStar Destinations so that we can have a new revitalized town center/Mall. I have diligently studied all available material on this project and believe that it will be an incredible asset to the Sunriver community and to Deschutes County, while maintaining the integrity of the overall development and the Sunriver area. We are confident that the Sunriver Owner Association Board Members will ensure this addition will still keep the character of Sunriver that we have all known. Please support the proposed text amendment that will allow Sunriver to move into the 21st Century in a thoughtful, well planned fashion. Kind Regards, Jeff and Denise Swedlund 24 Camas Lane 1/7/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Joe Weber [mrfixitpdx@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:49 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: PA 07-06 and TA 07-06 Terri, I would like to comment on Silver Star's master plan for the Sunriver Mall within in the Town Center designation. As a Sunriver homeowner and an Architect, I support improving the mall. However, the proposed Town Center designation brings a density that will increase congestion to an already crowded area. I am sure Silver Star wants to maximize their return but I believe that can be achieved with a less dense solution. Thank you for consideration for considering a less dense solution. Joe & Roberta Weber 6 Cottonwood Ln. 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Terry Thomas [rpdaddy@chamberscable.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:46 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Fw: Village at Sunriver Subject: Village at Sunriver bear Ms Payne, My wife, Carol, wrote to you a few days ago expressing support for the Silver Star plan to redevelop the Sunriver Mall. Please add my positive support as well. As she advised you, we have been property owners in Sunriver for more that 25 years and full-time residents since 1999; we both agree that something certainly needs to be done to the Village to address its current shameful state. I have been disturbed to learn that you may have been receiving some negative comments on the Silver Star plan from people who are not Sunriver property owners. If this might possibly be true, I would urge you to check all submissions on the subject against a roster of owners. Regards, Terence F. Thomas 24 Tournament Lane Sunriver 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: MMarty2692@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:51 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: New Mall We're home owners in Sunriver, and feel strongly that a changed mall is very necessary to Sunriver. If Sunriver is to be looked upon as a "upper class" vacation destination, the mall must be changed. Otherwise it will not be able to compete with the new developments. For the sake of property value, and moving into the future as a 5 star resort, we must move forward with the mall project. Thank you for your time. Anita Marty 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Trunzo, Tony [tony.trunzo@flir.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:58 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: infosroa@srowners.org; dbrannan@chamberscable.net Subject: File Numbers PA -07-6 and TA -06-7 Attachments: Deschutes County Letter.docx Dear Ms Payne The attached letter from my wife and I relates to the two matters pending before the Planning Commission on the redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall. We are homeowners at Sunriver, with a residence at 0 Red Cedar Drive. Please accept this letter as part of your public comment process. Thank you and regards. Anthony L. (Tony) Trunzo Senior Vice President FLIR Systems, Inc. 0:(503) 498-3868 C:(503) 481-3896 ton y. trunzo@ flir. com Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law, subject to export control restrictions or that otherwise contains proprietary information. If you receive this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and then destroy it and do not review, disclose, copy or distribute it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 1/7/2008 January 3, 2008 Deschutes County Planning Commission Attention: Ms. Terri Hansen Payne Via e-mail terrip aC�,co.deschutes.or.us Re: File Numbers PA -07-6 and TA -06-7 Dear Ms. Payne: As homeowners at Sunriver, and experienced financial professionals, we oppose the proposed zoning changes and land sale related to the development at the Sunriver Mall by SilverStar Development, LLC. The lack of analytic rigor and proper due diligence conducted by the Sunriver Owners' Association (SROA) in connection with its negotiations with SilverStar cause us great concern about the protection of assets owned by Sunriver's homeowners, and about the proper representation of the homeowners by the SROA Board. In particular, we respectfully believe SROA has failed to conduct fundamental due diligence that must be completed prior to any determination on whether to proceed with the project. We believe no further actions should be taken until the following questions are fully and satisfactorily answered: • What are SilverStar's qualifications, track record and experience in resort village development? It appears "SilverStar" and its financial backers and owners have NEVER constructed this type of resort development, and have ZERO experience. Hiring consultants who have done this in the past does not sufficiently mitigate the numerous project risks. • What is SilverStar's financial condition, source of financing, and business plan? Do they have the operational and financial wherewithal to complete this project as proposed? Even for skilled, experienced developers, projects of this scale (over $250 million according to SilverStar) are risky and uncertain and take many years to complete. How will SilverStar, an inexperienced developer, react in the face of the inevitable challenges, particularly in the very challenging financial environment we are in today? • What independent professional analysis has been done by parties hired by and solely operating in the interests of SROA? We understand there has been: o No independent appraisal to establish whether the sale price for the proposed land sale is fair to the owners—this is perhaps the most truly shocking omission. o No independent analysis of this development's impact on other highly valued Sunriver amenities, including pools, marinas, stables, bike paths and golf courses. o No independent traffic analysis. • What is the true price for the proposed land sale by SROA to SilverStar? The proposal states "up to $2.53 million". Does this mean the price may turn out to be lower? Are we giving the green light to SROA for any price less than that amount but not a higher amount? • What financial or cost benefit analysis, weighing the possible benefit (a nicer village) with the costs (more residential, with all its issues) has been done? Is the benefit being achieved without unacceptable unintended consequences? Prior to being homeowners in Sunriver, we were homeowners at Mammoth, CA, one of the resort communities cited by SilverStar as a good "comparable" for Sunriver. We can speak with authority of personal experience—it's not. Here are some of the crucial differences: • The Village at Mammoth (whose development we wholeheartedly supported) was developed by Intrawest Corporation, a transparent, publicly traded company whose sole business was resort development. They had experience, clear financial reporting, a successful track record, and demonstrated financial wherewithal. • Mammoth is a very isolated community with no reasonable retail nearby—there was no city the size of Bend within a three hour drive—meaning that commercial development was crucially needed for the further ongoing health of the community. That isn't the case at Sunriver. • The Village in Mammoth is directly connected via gondola to the main recreational amenity—the ski mountain. • Intrawest ultimately purchased and developed numerous other parcels in Mammoth, and ultimately purchased the mountain as well, offering an integrated "solution" Despite assertions made by the SROA in it's letter of November 8, which relies on the "better retail" argument to support the redevelopment, the facts bear out a different objective—high density residential development by a developer with no track record of success. The project's risks combined with added traffic, congestion and stress on recreational amenities (which are the true unique draw of Sunriver), outweigh the benefit of the proposed project. We entirely support the objective of improving the Sunriver Mall. But we oppose the SilverStar development as currently envisioned, oppose any zoning changes to allow such development, and oppose any additional sale of land by SROA to SilverStar unless and until such time as substantially better due diligence is conducted (including financial diligence on SilverStar) and more independent analysis is completed. Despite claims to the contrary, the SilverStar deal isn't the only possible solution for the Mall. If a better mall can't be had with SilverStar as a partner, the entire Sunriver community should engage in a process to develop a plan that will better meet the communities' needs. We believe that the true magic of Sunriver lies not in its stores but in the river, bike paths, golf courses, mountains and natural environment for all to enjoy and remember. SROA has simply given up too much with too little attention to crucial analysis for us to support the zoning changes or the land sale elements. Sincerely, Tony and Pat Trunzo Portland, OR and 10 Red Cedar Lane, Sunriver Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Barb Collier [dobaco@peak.org] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:01 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Support of Silver Star project Our names are Douglas and Barbara Collier. Our address is 56868 Spring River Drive, Sunriver, OR 97707. The Silver Star project has our complete approval. Good Luck!! 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: J. D. Walsh & Associates [jdwalsh@gwest.net] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:15 AM To: info@thevillageatsunriver.com; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Dechutes County Planning Commission Importance: High I want to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed redevelopment of the Sunriver Mall. The planning commission should support this effort by allowing the appropriate zoning language changes. As a Sunriver home owner and a professional land planning consultant I have reviewed the proposed changes and feel that redeveloping the mall properties will change a current liability to a positive benefit for all Sunriver property owners. I applaud and support the efforts of both the SROA and SilverStar Destinations, LLC. James D. Walsh 18 Cherrywood Lane Sunriver, OR 97707 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Cc503@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 12:33 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Village Terri Payne: I want to show my support for the rezoning to allow further progress in redeveloping of the Sunriver Village by SilverStar Destinations LLC. The past 40 years have shown it is not a viable commercial only piece of property. It was a great idea, but it just doesn't work. The merchants just can't make a living off of the amount of customer traffic. They don't sell, they close. With no profits they have nothing to sell. Mixed use will supply more customers and lighten the rental load from the merchants needed to make the Mall work. Right now every year gets worse. It's an embarrassment to have to explain to our guest to have really low expectations when they walk to the Mall. We have Backwoods # 4 & # 11. We're right across the street from the Mall and we support rezoning. Thanks Craig & Becky carlson Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Joyce A Hart [Joyce@cmc.net] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:56 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: joyce@cmc.net Subject: Deny Sunriver Village Mall rezoning Deschutes County Planning Commission: I strongly implore you not to allow rezoning of the Sunriver Mall. Before any rezoning can take place a proper transportation impact study should be done. The proposed Silver Star high density development would greatly exacerbate existing traffic problems that occur during high use times which often accompany inclement weather conditions. Please come to Sunriver now to see what impact the past snows and rains have done in low areas. We do not have surface drainage and I note no plans for such. We already have problems with water in existing bike tunnels during times of high snow melt and/or rain. With so much of the land covered by buildings and pavement, surface water problems will greatly increase. Bend has such problems now and we will have them even greater as our water table during winter months isoftenless than 5 feet. I- live -on- the -east side of Abbot and mine is at 2 feet creating a drainage problem in the nearby bike tunnel and under my house. Having lived in Bend and here in Sunriver I have come to realize the great difference in water tables and amounts of precipitation and temperatures. Please take these differences into consideration in making your decision. If it were not for the water drainage created by Sun River this would once again be mostly wet land as it was when I herded cattle here in the early 60's. The high density proposed here violates all that is good about living in the Sunriver area. People look to the Whistler/Blackcombe Village concept or the Vale concept as a reason to allow the change in density and height restrictions. Those areas do not even have that kind of density or height allowance. They are much larger ski areas. Whistler was close to bankrupt before the larger ski area of Blackcombe came into being. Our ski area can't begin to compare with those areas. We haven't plans for busing like all those resorts have. If we want that kind of height or density we can go to Bend. Parking will be deplorable if rezoning takes place. This plan is high density urban not rural as was envisioned by our founder John Gray. Having lived in Deschutes Country since 1962 I have seen many changes but allowing this rezoning would not fit the character we hope to maintain in this community. Open areas are extremely important to those of us who purchase homes here and for those visitors who feel this is country when they come here. Please deny this rezoning application. Sincerely, Joyce A. Hart PO Box 3168 # 9 Summit View Lane Sunriver, OR 97707 Phone: 541 593-1716 1/7/2008 To: Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Smith, Gloria [gsmith@sunriverrealty.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 11:11 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: 122607 Letter of Support to County.doc To: Terri Payne, Senior Planner Deschutes County Development Department E-mail: terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Fax: 541-385-1764 Dear Ms. Payne: My name is Gloria Smith_, employee of Sunriver Realty, one of 230 Sunriver Chamber of Commerce business members serving the Sunriver area. I would like to register my support of SilverStar Destinations' application to create a Town Center district that would encompass the current property known as Sunriver Village. While there has been some opposition to this proposal with regards to building height, residential density, parking, and other more minor issues, it is my feeling that the overall benefits of the proposed redevelopment of Sunriver Village for outweigh the concerns expressed by a vocal minority. The current Village is in a serious state of disrepair and suffers from a high level of retail and commercial vacancy. It is not only unattractive and dysfunctional to visitors and residents alike, it has contributed significantly to the degradation of Sunriver's reputation as a premier vacation destination in the Pacific Northwest. Change is constant and inevitable. For the past decade, the "change" in Sunriver Village has been negative ... a trend that will continue without a fundamental overhaul of the retail and commercial district in our community. SilverStar has proposed a comprehensive solution to bring POSITIVE change to Sunriver, and the community is strongly supportive of this solution. Your approval of SilverStar's application will help ensure that Sunriver will continue to attract vital tourist dollars into Central Oregon and that Sunriver property values will remain strong and continue to provide a significant tax base for county services and programs. Sincerely, Gloria Smith Broker, CRS, GRI, ABR Sunriver Realty 1/7/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Freeman Cockram [cockram@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:05 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Re: The Village at Sunriver Terri, Now after reading the last issue of THE SCENE, we are concerned about the number of units being planned for mall. How will the traffic ever get past the mall to Century Drive. The bike paths are crowded now. With that many more people, where will they all fit in? We are concerned about the height of units and total possible occupancy. We also do not want to lose the owners park (Mary McCallum). The original plans called for many less units in the mall. That would be more reasonable. Common ground and lower density is what makes SunRiver attractive. Freeman and Shirley Cockram On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Terri Hansen Payne wrote: > Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record. Terri > Payne Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County > 117 NW Lafayette > Bend, OR 97701 > Phone (541) 385-1404 > Fax (541) 385-1764 > terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Original Message > From: Freeman Cockram [mailto:cockram@comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:00 PM > To: Terri Hansen Payne > Subject: The Village at Sunriver > Terri Payne Terri - We would like for the County and SORA to move > forward with the plans for developing the Mall in Sunriver. We feel > that Sunriver needs a good Mall if our property is going to hold its > value. Let's please make it happen. Thanks --Freeman & Shirley > Cockram (Mountain View 31) 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Robert Hickman [rbhickman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: info@savesunriver.org Terri: Are you still collecting comments from Sunriver owners about the new mall. If you are, as owner of 22 Vine Maple in SR, I have some. The mall needs help but the proposal seems to be designed to exclude homeowners in the rest of Sunriver from the mall, making it the private domain of the residents of the high rise condos that will be built. The proposed property transfer implies that buildings or parking will extend into the areas to be sold to the new developer. While some of that area may be acceptable for building, there appears to be little or no building setback from existing streets and paths for the new buildings along Abbot or the relocated Beaver. That is not acceptable. There seems to be a clear intent to not allow resident bikes or cars anywhere near the mall. The new developer should not be allowed to create a impenetrable moat around a new castle, preventing the rest of us from accessing the commercial uses. A multiple story parking lot for other SR residents is not acceptable nor will it be used. If the new residents want covered parking put it underground below the new high rises, but leave ground level parking for the rest of us. I have seen what development of this type has done to Squaw Valley and Northstar in Tahoe, CA. It is only user friendly to the new condo residents. Everyone else is regarded as an outsider to be inconvenienced at every turn. The bike shops and other low return uses will be priced out of the new mall by jewelry, "art" and high end "resort" clothing" shops, just as has been done in Tahoe. Where will the rest of us go and how will we get to them? The low end shops will be sent to the business park or to Century Drive, which will not contribute to the desired ambiance. And we owners will be driven to Bend, leaving the rich condo owners to support more high end commerical than will ultimately be able to survive with the reduced traffic. If greed, exclusion, and over development are allowed to prevail, there will be a new mall problem in a few years and the cost to fix it will be even greater. Given the propensity for developers to maximize profits at the expense of the environment, people in your position must stand up to them for the sake of the rest of us. Much good luck. 1/8/2008 Message Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Doris Brannan [dbrannan@chamberscable.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:23 PM To: Rjminkster@aol.com Subject: RE: SUNRIVER MALL REMODEL/UPGRADE The cut off date for input from owners was January 3rd. Your e-mail address is correct; I do not know why it would bounce back. Would you consider sending your message to the Scene for the February issue? We need more articles with something to say other than the same old, same old. Doris Original Message From: Rjminkster@aol.com [mailto:Rjminkster@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 12:34 PM To: dbrannan@chamberscable.com; terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: SUNRIVER MALL REMODEL/UPGRADE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BEING OF SOUND MIND AND BODY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: 1. I HAVE OWNED PROPERTY IN SUNRIVER SINCE SEPTEMBER 1976, AND I STILL OWN 2 PIECES. 2. I REMEMBER WHEN THE MALL/VILLAGE, HAD A PHARMACY,CLOTHES STORE AND A KITCHEN STORE AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT ELSE. IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS THERE AGAIN. 3. IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO SHOP OUT HERE RATHER THAN GO INTO TOWN FOR EVERYTHING, AS IT IS NOW THERE IS NOT MUCH AVAILABLE THERE. IMAGINE THE GAS THAT MIGHT BE SAVED AND THE STRESS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 4. I LOVE THE FAMILY ATMOSPHERE OF SUNRIVER AND WITH THIS PROJECT I THINK IT WILL BE ENHANCED. 5. I HAVE OVER THE YEARS SUPPORTED THE SROA AND WHAT THEY HAVE FOR THE GOOD OF SUNRIVER AND IN THIS CASE THEY HAVE PUT A LOT OF TIME AND WORK. I THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. 6. AS FOR THOSE WHO DON'T LIVE HERE OR WHO HAVE NOT LIVED HERE VERY LONG, I DO NOT REALLY WANT TO LISTEN TO THEM. I DON'T THINK THEY KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT SUNRIVER AND IT'S PAST HISTORY. 7. MY PROPERTY VALUES HAVE RISEN QUITE A BIT OVER THE YEARS AND WITH THIS PROJECT I THINK THEY WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. 8. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY STRESS OR OVERCROWDING OF THE RECREATION FACILITIES OVER THE YEARS AND I DON'T SEE IT CHANGING WITH THIS PROJECT. 9.1 AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE SROA BOARDS DIRECTIVES. THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS, ROGER MINK 1/8/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Kevin Knode [kevin@kipcoinc.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:43 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: zone change I am a home owner of # 3 Acer in Sunriver and live full time in Eugene. My wife and several Acer St. neighbors would like to go on record in support of the zone changes. Please pass this along to the planning commisssion. Respectfully, Kevin A. Knode (541) 689-9265 Office (541) 729-8888 CeII 1/8/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: RFergusson@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:03 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Village Redevelopment Dear Ms. Payne: I am an owner of a townhouse at 38 Fremont Crossing, Sunriver adjacent to the proposed new development of the Sunriver Village. I want to strongly express my support for the redevelopment of the Village as set forth by the developer and would encourage you and the Deschutes County Planning commission to do what is necessary for them to be able to proceed on this project as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Robert A. Fergusson Owner, 38 Fremont Crossing Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Sent: To: Cc: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:50 PM John Goodman Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SilverStar Submittals John, After reading the SilverStar submittals for the meeting 1-10-08 on the Deschutes County Planning Commission website last evening I tried to call you today to discuss a serious matter related to the documents. Unfortunately, there was no answer nor voice mail at the listed number in your postings. Therefore, I am writing this e-mail. The matter that is so serious has to do with your following statement within your document (the document is signed jointly by you and Mark Smuland): "While some of these inaccuracies are innocent misunderstandings, we believe that some of these inaccuracies are strategic efforts to mislead the public and misdirect the planning commission. For example, an opponent mentioned at the 12/13/07 planning commission hearing that the ratio of residential space to commercial space in the district would be 7/1. The reality is that our plans currently indicate that we would have a ratio of livable residential area to commercial space of less than 4/1. Our opponents can recklessly make these claims with impunity." This statement is directed at testimony I gave to the Deschutes County Planning Commission at their public hearing December 13, 2007. I take great offense to this accusation made on the public record by yourself and Mark Smuland for two reasons. First, you are questioning both my moral character and my professional integrity by stating that I would knowingly and willfully state an inaccuracy for personal gain. Nothing could be further from the truth and I am deeply disappointed and offended by this statement. Second is the fact that my statement is completely accurate and based upon facts contained within the public record either in statements that you and Mark have made or within the text of the proposal language. Here is the simple calculation: 1,100 x 583 = 641,300 / 85,000 = 7.54 (I rounded down to the 7 to 1 ratio I used in my testimony) Calculation Support: Ave. residential square footage Total Allowed Residential Units density of 22 units/acre) Required Commercial Square Ft. 1,100 sq. ft. (Stated by Mark Smuland at the November 8, 2007 public hearing) 583 (Also stated in the same public hearing and is calculated based upon the proposed 85,000 (From Proposed Plan and Text Amendments) While I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know the calculation ratio amounts, I believe you should have. An accusation of this nature made on the public record should have received your closest scrutiny as a professional to protect everyone involved. Again, I must say I am disappointed, especially as this was presented to support your assertion that facts were being misrepresented. I am not being so bold as to state that you did this intentionally, although that is what you accused me of. I am asking that you correct this error on the public record by making a written retraction to the both the County Planning Commission and myself. I appreciate your prompt action on this urgent matter. Sincerely, Don Hutchison 1/10/2008 Message Terri Hansen Payne Page 1 of 1 From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:44 PM To: 'Save Sunriver'; Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: Snow Attachments: _AVG certification_.txt Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb®teleport.com From: Doris Brannan [mailto:dbrannan@chamberscable.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:51 AM To: webweb@teleport.com; 'Dennis Wood'; 'Wayne & Linda Thomas'; 'Karen Pitner'; 'Bill Starks'; 'Tom Ped'; 'Herbert Dix'; 'Cheryl Fellers'; 'Dave Finney'; 'Jane Boubel' Subject: RE: Snow I am sorry that weather caused you to miss the forum on January 8th. We planned and held two forum sessions for out-of-town owners, one on November 24th and the other on December 29th. The session on January 8th was for all owners, but primarily for local who would be out of town to see family or on vacation over Thanksgiving and Christmas. Inspite of extremely difficult weather, we had a good turnout of owners on January 8th. There are no more forums planned before the election. Ballots go out next week. Doris Brannan Original Message From: Marti Croal [mailto:martic@srowners.org] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:12 AM To: Dennis Wood; Doris Brannan; Wayne & Linda Thomas; Karen Pitner; Bill Starks; Tom Ped; Herbert Dix; Cheryl Fellers; Dave Finney; Jane Boubel Subject: FW: Snow Forwarded to SROA BOD, Jane Boubel Marti Forwarded Message From: Merlyn & Linda Webster <webweb@teleport.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:16:32 -0800 To: <infosroa@srowners.org> Cc: 'Save Sunriver' <info@savesunriver.org> Subject: Snow I had intended to make the trip over this morning for the late afternoon ballot meeting, but will not be able to make it due to the bad weather. I'd like to suggest that another meeting time be scheduled for the non-residential owners when the weathers better. The proposals vote should be rescheduled as well. Please let me know when that will be. Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA) webweb@teleport.com End of Forwarded Message 1/10/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: Bill Day [flyingbill@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:55 AM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Vote re: Mall Development and Beaver Drive relocation Terri after more study (perhaps belated) I question the plan on the basis of density, congestion, and the environment and the effecrts it will have on current owners, rent rates and net income to landloards.... Not to mention putting a larger amount of traffic in the "back Yards" of many homes with the relocation of Bever Drive... I am a definite NO to the land sale NO William Day 6 Fox Lane Sun River OR 97707 Bill Day (714) 396-6733 Original Message From: Terri Hansen Payne To: flyingbill anearthlink.net Sent: 1/2/2008 4:18:26 PM Subject: RE: Vote re: Mall Development and Beaver Drive relocation Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record. Terri Payne Terri Hansen Payne, AICP Senior Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-1404 Fax (541) 385-1764 terrip@co.deschutes.or.us From: Bill Day[mailto:flyingbill@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:08 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Cc: Larry Browning Subject: Vote re: Mall Development and Beaver Drive relocation Terrie Hanson I William W Day and I own 6 Fox Lane in Sun River , I am in favor of the redevelopment of the mall I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE LAND SALE OF THE RELOCATION OF BEAVER DRIVE 1/10/2008 Page 2 of 2 It would de -value my property by putting a main throughfare in my back yard This is not fair to me .... I vote NO on the Land Sale and Road relocation Bill Day (714) 396-6733 1/10/2008 Page 1 of 2 Terri Hansen Payne From: John Goodman [jgoodman@pctadvisors.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:27 PM To: dmbhutch@msn.comII Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Response to Email Don —Thank you for your email. While it was your statement that we were rebutting, I indeed have respect for you, and intended no offense. For the record, I do know the ratios in the text amendment, and in my conceptual master plan. The short version is that our letter was statistically accurate, and I believe your testimony was both inaccurate and misleading, but I accept your statement that this was not your intent. Substantively, we paraphrased your testimony as stating what the "ratio...in the district would be". (emphasis supplied). I believe that is an accurate reflection of your testimony. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The failure in your analysis, explained further by your detail below — is that you've used a hybrid of district minimum standards for commercial, combined with district maximum standard for residential, multiplied by an assumed avg sq ft of residential unit size in my conceptual plan. This is not accurate. And while I do not believe you were intending to mislead the planning commission — I don't perceive that to be your style — I do believe that providing quantitative testimony that is dramatically inaccurate was careless. If you are going to use my conceptual plan for your illustrations, it's knowingly misleading to excerpt what is convenient, and ignore the remainder. In my conceptual plan, as you probably know, we present much more than the minimum sq ft of commercial, and less than the maximum number of units. If you want the accurate statistics in our current conceptual plan, when you back out parking and common area sq ft of our proposed plan, we have 496,583 net sq ft of residential and 144,092 net sq ft commercial/retail. That's 3.4 to 1. Not 7:1. You only get to 7:1 by using Mark's 1100 sq ft/unit number (from conceptual plan), and the min/max of commercial/residential. This is more than semantics or splitting hairs, and it's not a matter of opinion. It is a >50% error in the quantitative estimate you furnished to the PC, which casts an inaccurate shadow on the true nature of our redevelopment plan — particularly when it comes from an intelligent, credible speaker. If your testimony had been focused on the text amendment or zoning standards creating a potential of 583 units, and only 85k sq ft of commercial space (factual statements), no problem. If you want to get into the unit sq ft estimates in my conceptual master plan, then you need to put it in context with other data in the conceptual plan. To not do so is misleading and erroneous. You're a smart guy, Don, and you made a statement that blended data from various bases that were incongruent. I admittedly came down hard on you in my letter. And while your group has clearly employed tactics which are intended to mislead and/or misdirect, my rebuttal was intended to address your testimony, not attack your personal character. So with all that said, I respect your raising the issue and your request for a retraction. If you will agree to correct your inaccurate testimony, 1 will issue a clarifying statement to the effect that I don't think you made such statement with the intent to mislead. Please call me if you want to discuss live. My personal cell # is below, which I would appreciate if you did not forward. I will also renew my invitation from our last conversation to sit down together the next time you're in Sunriver. If you're coming to the meeting tonight, please drive carefully over the pass. Thx. JG 1/10/2008 Page 2 of 2 John Goodman, Managing Director SilverStar Destinations, LLC SilverStar Outdoor, LLC (541) 848-8484 (office/mobile) From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:50 PM To: John Goodman Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SilverStar Submittals John, After reading the SilverStar submittals for the meeting 1-10-08 on the Deschutes County Planning Commission website last evening I tried to call you today to discuss a serious matter related to the documents. Unfortunately, there was no answer nor voice mail at the listed number in your postings. Therefore, -I am writing this e-mail. The matter that is so serious has to do with your following statement within your document (the document is signed jointly by you and Mark Smuland): "While some of these inaccuracies are innocent misunderstandings, we believe that some of these inaccuracies are strategic efforts to mislead the public and misdirect the planning commission. For example, an opponent mentioned at the 12/13/07 planning commission hearing that the ratio of residential space to commercial space in the district would be 7/1. The reality is that our plans currently indicate that we would have a ratio of livable residential area to commercial space of less than 4/1. Our opponents can recklessly make these claims with impunity." This statement is directed at testimony I gave to the Deschutes County Planning Commission at their public hearing December 13, 2007. I take great offense to this accusation made on the public record by yourself and Mark Smuland for two reasons. First, you are questioning both my moral character and my professional integrity by stating that I would knowingly and willfully state an inaccuracy for personal gain. Nothing could be further from the truth and I am deeply disappointed and offended by this statement. Second is the fact that my statement is completely accurate and based upon facts contained within the public record either in statements that you and Mark have made or within the text of the proposal language. Here is the simple calculation: 1,100 x 583 = 641,300 / 85,000 = 7.54 (I rounded down to the 7 to 1 ratio I used in my testimony) Calculation Support: Ave. residential square footage 1,100 sq. Total Allowed Residential Units 583 density of 22 units/acre) Required Commercial Square Ft. 85,000 ft. (Stated by Mark Smuland at the November 8, 2007 public hearing) (Also stated in the same public hearing and is calculated based upon the proposed (From Proposed Plan and Text Amendments) While I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know the calculation ratio amounts, I believe you should have. An accusation of this nature made on the public record should have received your closest scrutiny as a professional to protect everyone involved. Again, I must say I am disappointed, especially as this was presented to support your assertion that facts were being misrepresented. I am not being so bold as to state that you did this intentionally, although that is what you accused me of. I am asking that you correct this error on the public record by making a written retraction to the both the County Planning Commission and myself. I appreciate your prompt action on this urgent matter. Sincerely, Don Hutchison 1/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: anchojoe@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:26 PM To: srscene@srowners.org Cc: infosroa@srowners.org; asowa@bendbulletin.com; info@SaveSunriver.org; Terri Hansen Payne Dear Sirs and Madams, No, no ,no, what was SROA board members thinking? The Silver Star plan is too big, too loud, and WAY more than what most Sunriver owners wanted when we said "fix the mall". Fix the mall, NOT build 600 units of high density housing! This is totally out of character and scale for the community. There are a litany of reasons to scuttle the current proposal, here is just one. I am required to mitigate any outdoor lighting I may have in order to preserve the famous "dark" skies of Sunriver. What, if any, provisions has Silver Star made to mitigate the nighttime glare of the innumerable outdoor lights that will be necessary to illuminate and provide security to the many parking lots, buildings, and sidewalks of such a large development. Do you want the glow of the mall to hang in the night sky over Sunriver the way it does over Bend, Redmond, or Madras? How does the excellent Sunriver Observatory feel about the degradation of this most valuable resource? And don't even get me started on the notion of parking lots as "open space". That position is, were it not so odious, truly laughable. We are in danger of trading something that is truly unique and irreplaceable; space, clean air, tranquility, and nature, for something common and ordinary that can be found in any urban area; congestion, noise, pollution, and pavement. Respectfully concerned, Mike & Susan Stone Owners 11 Titleist Sunriver, OR 1/10/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Clare May [c.may10@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:16 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SilverStar January 10, 2008 Dear Ms. Payne, Another letter in support of SilverStar's plans for reinventing and revitalizing the mall at Sunriver. We have watched the most valuable asset in the Sunriver community decline steadily over many years and we now have the perfect solution in the redevelopment plans SilverStar has set forth. For reasons we can't fathom, there is a vocal minority trying to sidetrack this necessary progress, and we urge you to approve the zoning and anything else needed for this important project to go forward. We recently had the privilege of visiting Whistler Village in British Columbia and witnessed for ourselves what looks to be a very similar mixed-use town center. We found it to be not only charming, but also vital, exciting and thronged with happy tourists from early morning to late in the evening, which benefits not only the guests, but of course the businesses hosting them. Perhaps you could visit Whistler yourself to see the amazing similarities. Sunriver has the potential to be so much more! We as Sunriver homeowners need to feel proud of our community; therefore, we need the redevelopment plans to go forward as soon as possible. We don't have the luxury of time, as the competition is getting fierce out there --- just take a look at any airline's magazine to see the dozens of new ski/golf/outdoor destination resorts being touted. We want people to come to visit us! Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Clare and Orson May 22 Diamond Peak Sunriver, Oregon Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Robyn Nored [robyn@123playground.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:07 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: File # PA -07-6; TA -07-6 - The Village at Sunriver Terri, Good Evening! As Sunriver property owners, we fully endorse the text amendment as it's currently written. SilverStar Destination's redevelopment of Sunriver Village maintains the spirit of the community.... while at the same time, creating a new vision. We are excited about this vision, where a new commercial core will provide a myriad of opportunities for people to shop, work, live and play. Please do not allow the small, vocal opponents (who, by the way, many are not Sunriver homeowners) stand in your way of approving this amendment. We are looking forward to the next step...seeing the design (with the approved text amendment) developed and introduced formally to the community. Thank you, Robyn & Clay Nored Sunriver Property Owners 1/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: Greg Law [mrlandscape@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 4:50 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Silverstar sunriver village I would have to say that this is the precise reason that I bought a home in Sunriver was escape this type of development. It is greedy, non eco friendly and worst of all financed by a questionable care home provider. I would ask that in your better judgment that you not assist in the degradation of this beautiful planned community. After all is said and done, there will never be a community so thoughtfully master planned and still ahead of it's time. Sincerely, Gregory Law 14 Titilest 1/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: DayDreamBuilders@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 5:33 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Silver Star Destinations SUNRIVER I am a homeowner and builder in Sunriver. I recently forwarded a letter to you with my name attached, in favor of the Silver Star proposal. I was misinformed as to the magnatude of the changes. And quite shocked and appauled that anyone would be in favor of this proposal, now that I have been better informed. I was told that Silver Star would be removing and replacing existing buildings only, with new 2-3 story mixed use buildings. Where the bottom floors would be business and the upper floors would be mixed use, business and living. I would like you to not stand behind this proposal and/or rezone anything. I will be voting NO on the Sunriver Homeowners special ballot on this matter. Sincerely. Dave Tomlinson #31 Big Leaf Lane DAY DREAM BUILDERS LLC owner Day Dream Builders LLC CCB #167781 Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/22/2008 Page 1 of 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:30 PM To: John Goodman Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Response to Email John, Thanks for your e-mail response and for your phone number. I will try to give you a call tomorrow so we can discuss this. I guess we may still not agree on the exact ratios, but I think we can agree that it is anywhere from as low as 3.4:1 to as high as 7.5:1. The real unknown, and why I used maximums and minimums, and used your average square footage amount, was that is what cou/dhappen (I did use the word COULD and not WOULD in my testimony, sorry if that was confused - I do respect that there is no final design, only drafts). I also must admit that I had not seen anything stating the square footage amounts that you list from your conceptual plan, if they have been presented somewhere I must have missed them. In closing I believe both our statements as to ratios could be correct, I did specifically mention in my testimony that I was speaking in hypotheticals, and that I thought that was positive as that is all we can at this point as the plan was still a draft. If the Commissioners took my testimony as anything but a hypothetical, and worst case scenario, then I do apologize and will write that my intent was just to illustrate what might happen, not what will or even what is currently planned. As for getting together I would like to take you up on that. The drive over for the hearing was long and after the hearing I was worn out, so I missed touching base with you that night. We also had to come back for a 1/2 marathon race that Marcey's clinic was sponsoring so it was a short trip. Looking forward to talking with you ad for continuing to work with you. I did want to add that although many of each of our supporters has been overly "enthusiastic" in some of their statements I have appreciated my conversations with yourself and Mark and look forward to continuing our constructive dialogue. Sunriver wil be the better for it. Don H. From: jgoodman@pctadvisors.com To: dmbhutch@msn.com CC: terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Response to Email Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:26:59 -0800 Don —Thank you for your email. While it was your statement that we were rebutting, I indeed have respect for you, and intended no offense. For the record, I do know the ratios in the text amendment, and in my conceptual master plan. The short version is that our letter was statistically accurate, and I believe your testimony was both inaccurate and misleading, but 1 accept your statement that this was not your intent. Substantively, we paraphrased your testimony as stating what the "ratio...in the district would be". (emphasis supplied). I believe that is an accurate reflection of your testimony. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The failure in your analysis, explained further by your detail below — is that you've used a hybrid of district minimum standards for commercial, combined with district maximum standard for residential, multiplied by an assumed avg sq ft of residential unit size in my conceptual plan. This is not accurate. And while I do not believe you were intending to mislead the planning commission — I don't perceive that to be your style — I do believe that providing quantitative testimony that is dramatically inaccurate was careless. 1/22/2008 Page 2 of 3 If you are going to use my conceptual plan for your illustrations, it's knowingly misleading to excerpt what is convenient, and ignore the remainder. In my conceptual plan, as you probably know, we present much more than the minimum sq ft of commercial, and Tess than the maximum number of units. If you want the accurate statistics in our current conceptual plan, when you back out parking and common area sq ft of our proposed plan, we have 496,583 net sq ft of residential and 144,092 net sq ft commercial/retail. That's 3.4 to 1. Not 7:1. You only get to 7:1 by using Mark's 1100 sq ft/unit number (from conceptual plan), and the min/max of commercial/residential. This is more than semantics or splitting hairs, and it's not a matter of opinion. It is a >50% error in the quantitative estimate you furnished to the PC, which casts an inaccurate shadow on the true nature of our redevelopment plan — particularly when it comes from an intelligent, credible speaker. If your testimony had been focused on the text amendment or zoning standards creating a potential of 583 units, and only 85k sq ft of commercial space (factual statements), no problem. If you want to get into the unit sq ft estimates in my conceptual master plan, then you need to put it in context with other data in the conceptual plan. To not do so is misleading and erroneous. You're a smart guy, Don, and you made a statement that blended data from various bases that were incongruent. I admittedly came down hard on you in my letter. And while your group has clearly employed tactics which are intended to mislead and/or misdirect, my rebuttal was intended to address your testimony, not attack your personal character. So with all that said, I respect your raising the issue and your request for a retraction. If you will agree to correct your inaccurate testimony, I will issue a clarifying statement to the effect that I don't think you made such statement with the intent to mislead. Please call me if you want to discuss live. My personal cell # is below, which I would appreciate if you did not forward. I will also renew my invitation from our last conversation to sit down together the next time you're in Sunriver. If you're coming to the meeting tonight, please drive carefully over the pass. Thx. JG John Goodman, Managing Director SilverStar Destinations, LLC SilverStar Outdoor, LLC (54.1) 848-8484 (office/mobile) From: Don & Marcey Hutchison [mailto:dmbhutch@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:50 PM To: John Goodman Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: SilverStar Submittals John, After reading the SilverStar submittals for the meeting 1-10-08 on the Deschutes County Planning Commission website last evening I tried to call you today to discuss a serious matter related to the documents. Unfortunately, there was no answer nor voice mail at the listed number in your postings. Therefore, I am writing this e-mail. The matter that is so serious has to do with your following statement within your document (the document is signed jointly by you and Mark Smuland): 1/22/2008 Page 3 of 3 "While some of these inaccuracies are innocent misunderstandings, we believe that some of these inaccuracies are strategic efforts to mislead the public and misdirect the planning commission. For example, an opponent mentioned at the 12/13/07 planning commission hearing that the ratio of residential space to commercial space in the district would be 7/1. The reality is that our plans currently indicate that we would have a ratio of livable residential area to commercial space of less than 4/1. Our opponents can recklessly make these claims with impunity." This statement is directed at testimony I gave to the Deschutes County Planning Commission at their public hearing December 13, 2007. I take great offense to this accusation made on the public record by yourself and Mark Smuland for two reasons. First, you are questioning both my moral character and my professional integrity by stating that I would knowingly and willfully state an inaccuracy for personal gain. Nothing could be further from the truth and I am deeply disappointed and offended by this statement. Second is the fact that my statement is completely accurate and based upon facts contained within the public record either in statements that you and Mark have made or within the text of the proposal language. Here is the simple calculation: 1,100 x 583 = 641,300 / 85,000 = 7.54 (I rounded down to the 7 to 1 ratio I used in my testimony) Calculation Support: Ave. residential square footage 1,100 sq. Total Allowed Residential Units 583 the proposed density of 22 units/acre) Required Commercial Square Ft. 85,000 ft. (Stated by Mark Smuland at the November 8, 2007 public hearing) (Also stated in the same public hearing and is calculated based upon (From Proposed Plan and Text Amendments) While I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know the calculation ratio amounts, I believe you should have. An accusation of this nature made on the public record should have received your closest scrutiny as a professional to protect everyone involved. Again, I must say I am disappointed, especially as this was presented to support your assertion that facts were being misrepresented. I am not being so bold as to state that you did this intentionally, although that is what you accused me of. I am asking that you correct this error on the public record by making a written retraction to the both the County Planning Commission and myself. I appreciate your prompt action on this urgent matter. Sincerely, Don Hutchison 1/22/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: GEOWHIZZ@aol.com Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:31 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: something sneaky Where are the ballots for voting on this big project...We haven't rec'c any yet...Are there going to be some add'I legal entanglements because ballots delayed, hidden??? Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/22/2008 Terri Hansen Payne From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Gentry Wade [gentry@gewade.com] Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:33 PM Terri Hansen Payne Town Center District - 5 New Conditions Town Center Zone 01.doc Town Center Zone 01.doc (50 KB... Terri Hansen Payne Please accept the attached letter - Town Center Zone 01.doc - as my comments on the January 10, 2008 meeting of the Deschutes County Planning Commission on the proposed zoning change for The Village at Sunriver (Plan and Text amendments PA -07-6 and TA -07-6). I realize that the Town Center District Zone is no longer open for public comment, but I have strong feelings that some of the conditions approved by the Deschutes County Planning Commission are not 'requirements' that should be included in what was intended to be a generic zoning document applicable not only to 'The Village at Sunriver' but to any development in Deschutes County that wished to apply this zone. Furthermore, some of the 'conditions' must be translated from absolute values (500 residential units) to a generic requirement like 19.3 units per acre considering the total area of the development. I would appreciate your acknowledgment of receipt of the Email but do not expect a personal reply to the points raised in the letter. Thanks Gentry Wade 18160 Cottonwood Rd - #433 Sunriver, OR 97707 593-6408 1 January 13, 2008 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 Attention: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner terrip@co.deschutes.or.us Town Center Zone I attended the Thursday January 10th meeting of the Deschutes Planning Commission because of my interest in the 'Town Center District' {TCD} zone being proposed for redevelopment of the Mall at Sunriver. I have been a resident of Sunriver for 18 years and am a proponent of Silverstar's plan to develop the 'Village at Sunriver'. But this is not a letter for or against the new proposal; rather it is a discussion about making the proposed TCD requirements generic so that zone could be used for other similar developments in Deschutes County. The meeting opened with a discussion on how the proposed should be generic. Yes, Sunriver is the first application of the proposed zone, but the rules were to be applicable for future applications. The plan put before the Commission was one that had been developed cooperatively by the Sunriver Owners Association, Silverstar Destinations LLC and the Deschutes County Planning Staff. The zone relied heavily of rules in other zones defined by Deschutes County. Community Development Department Staff Report #4 dated January 10, 2008 illustrated the generic aspects of the proposed TCD and referenced relevant sections of other zones. During its deliberations on the TCD the commission added five conditions to the as proposed TCD and then voted 6 to 1 to forward the revised TCD for subsequent revision leading to final approval, modification or rejection by the Deschutes County Commissioners. The five conditions were, as I understood them: 1. Limit residential to a maximum of 500 units. 2. Provide a minimum of 120,000 sqft of ground level retail and commercial space. 3. Provide underground parking under the 'Plaza'. 07,410 sqft as noted on Silverstar drawing > Shared Area Summary <, dated 11\06\07} 4. Recessed first floor of parking garage. 5. Show parking on conceptual plan. 1. This is a normal zoning limit that can be converted to a generic term by dividing the number of housing units by the area of the proposed development. For example 500 units/26 acres = 19.3 units per acre. 2. Somehow the number of square feet of retail \commercial space at grade level has to be made generic. For 'The Village at Sunriver' this might be 120,000 sqft/26 = 4615 sqft per acre. A truly generic value might be 10.6% of the area of the development. But there should be some credit for retail\commercial on other levels in the development. Certainly, the proposed commercial building shown on the conceptual plan will have at least a second floor. Many stores and restaurants have second floors. And what about the top floor restaurant and lounge that might have a panoramic view the Mt Bachelor, the Three Sisters and Broken Top or Paulina peak. These spaces deserve -1- some credit in the retail \commercial requirement, maybe not 1 but certainly .5. Anyway, it is something to consider when establishing the TCD retail\commercial requirements. 3. Requiring underground parking under the Event Plaza is not a generic requirement. Why require parking under that Plaza but not under the 'Adventure Plaza' [14,357 sqft], the 'Community Center' [18,997 sqft], or the 'Pool Courtyard' [20,825 sqft)? What if Silverstar called all these paved areas courtyards, promenades or squares instead of plazas? How you are going to generically define which paved or park (Green Space) areas require underground parking? Yes, parking is a major problem for the TCD; visitors, workers and residents all arrive in vehicles. Space in the TCD is very limited and there are competing uses including but not limited to {Open Space 50%, Retail\Commercial 10.6%, Residential ? %}. Parking structures are much more expensive than grade level parking. The present zoning rules establish the number of vehicles that have to be accommodated for each type of use. But the TCD can't be a doughnut development: that is, by my definition, a central core of buildings surrounded by a grade level paved parking lot. As I imagine it, the fewer vehicles that are visible in the TCD, the better. This naturally leads the developer to incorporate parking structures, a term that I define to include below grade parking under residences, shops, plazas, etc. in addition to standalone parking structures, into the TCD design. My proposal for a generic parking requirement would be that some percent of the TCD total area or of the total parking requirement be inside the footprint of the TCD's structures. To me, in - structure parking is one of the defining characteristics of the Town Center District zone. 4. Recess the lowest level of the standalone parking structure below grade level. I get the impression from reading the letters objecting to creating the TCD, that people think a parking structure is an eyesore. They see an unadorned concrete or steel frame, a skeleton, standing on the corner at the entrance to Sunriver. The structure can be anything you like: it can be a landscaped berm, hidden with a facade that is identical to the proposed adjacent grocery store or the multi story commercial building that is proposed for the TCD a few hundred feet down Abbot Drive or a showcase for a stunning piece of art like a giant mural of stone and metal depicting recreation in Central Oregon. Recessing the parking garage one level would involve removing 480,000 cuft of dirt and rock. (The parking structure scales out on the mini letter size drawings I have available at 180 by 270 ft. Assume 10 ft excavation depth.) This equates to 2000 truckloads (9 cuyd per load) of dirt and rock removed from the site or relocated on site if it can be used as fill. If The Village at Sunriver or the next TCD site hits bedrock or a high water table, is the recessed requirement the negotiable? The adjacent commercial buildings and residences have a 45 foot height limit. If 3 stories of parking would meet the TCD parking requirements, why insist that one level be below grade. If 120 more parking spaces are needed then recess. Is rooftop parking allowed? Put a continuous planter on the periphery of a flat roof parking structure garage and get another 100 parking spaces on a total of five levels and still stay within the 45 ft limit. I bet that this might be cheaper and more convenient for employees than offsite surge parking with shuttle service. Recessing parking should be a design consideration based on many factors and tradeoffs and not a mandated zoning requirement other than as defined in the discussion of item 3 above. 2 5. Since parking is a major consideration in design of the TCD, it is inconceivable to me that any conceptual design presented by the developer and accepted by the County for review, would not include drawings and reams of studies defining the number of required spaces and their integration into the overall development and its traffic circulation plan. A review of the county's existing general submittal requirements would probably find that this requirement already exists in other documents. This requirement, to show 'parking' on the TCD conceptual plan, is a detail that does not belong in the TCD zone description. Sincerely Gentry Wade 18160 Cottonwood Rd. #433 Sunriver, OR 97707 cc: Bi II Chapman Bill Peck Doris Brannan John Goodman File: Town Center Zone 01 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: Ken Rose [kjdrose@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:20 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: Sunriver Village I've written before, however, after attending the Dec. 29th Forum I came away with some doubt as to whether SunStar is really interested in developing the village area for the benefit of sunriver! looking at the preliminary plan submitted, the layout reminded me of "Public Housing" and not one for a destination resort. Very little open space for recreation other than the paved streets, and the building concept looked like one of the parent of SunStar assisted living buildings. Also no one from SunStar or the Board seemed to have a handle on a preliminary time or a real concept on how the commercial and retail portions of the project would be done. The only thing I heard was from the SunStar president that "they would develop it". An answer like this tells me that SunStar is really only interested in selling condo's and that the commercial and retail is secondary. The main thing I can't figure is why is it an all or nothing attitude with SunStar? Why couldn't they develop the current 15 acres or at least propose an alternative to what parcels they really need and those that it would be nice to have. After all is said and done and SunStar is allowed to develop the property what is to prevent them from basically walking away after the condo's are sold. I'm afraid that we would end up with a Sunriver "ghetto", an group of junk poorly designed buildings. There are condos to the north of the existing parking area that are two stories tall. I can't imagine the impact if they were four stories tall, it goes back to that public housing look that I have seen in cities like Chicago and Atlanta. In Beaverton there something that is called the Round that started out with similar promises be a developer and investor group that turned into an eyesore without all the facilities and functions promised by the developer, and again I am concerned that the same thing could happen to Sunriver. I've heard that someone related to some executive at Sunstar was involved with that project. If that turns out to be true, who knows what could happen. Don't get me wrong I do think something needs to be done about the village, it's just that don't have a lot of confindence in an organization that never developed a resort of the magnitude. 1 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne From: CanlissJunor@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:54 PM To: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: I have decided how I will vote... I have made every attempt to keep an open mind and have consider all of the issues at hand. After all of the research I am confident that a vote of yes is the only option for Sunriver. I can't imagine this won't have a majority of the owner's support. In five years, we will all be congratulating ourselves. Canliss JUnor Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/23/2008