Deschutes County Planning Commission
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701
December 14, 2006 – 5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Present: Todd Turner; Kelly Smith; Keith Cyrus; Robert Otteni; Brenda Pace; Susan Quatre.
Staff present were Catherine Morrow, Planning Director; Terri Payne, Associate Planner; Dee
Van Donselaar, Associate Planner; Sher Buckner, Secretary. Absent: Mike Shirtcliff, Chair.
Vice Chair Keith Cyrus called the meeting to order.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
Vice Chair Cyrus asked if there were any public comments or concerns other than those
already on the agenda. None were raised.
III. PUBLIC HEARING - File No’s. QP-06-1 and V-06-17 – An Application for a Quadrant Plan
in Quadrants 1A, 1B, and 1D in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area and a Minor
Variance Application for 15 lots in Quadrant 1A – Dee Van Donselaar, Associate Planner
Vice Chair Cyrus read the opening statement and applicable standards and opened the
hearing. Dee Van Donselaar presented the Staff Report, showed the area under
consideration on a map and answered questions from the Commissioners.
Rob Von Rohr, an engineer representing the Applicants, commented on the open space
requirement on behalf of Pahlisch Homes. Applicant Vic Russell also offered testimony
regarding the proposal. The Commissioners asked several questions regarding the size and
number of trees inventoried on the property, preservation efforts required by the County Code,
and what efforts have been made by Pahlisch Homes to save trees currently located on the
Vice Chair Cyrus asked if there were any comments from opponents; there were none. He
suggested that this session was informational at this point and asked Catherine Morrow for
clarification on the Planning Commission’s role in this process. Dee also explained applicable
sections of Code.
Vice Chair Cyrus asked if anyone would like to make a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Otteni moved to accept the proposal for approval of the minor
variances as stated, including minimum lot depth, with Applicant’s and Staff’s proposed
SECONDED: Commissioner Pace.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Turner amended the motion and requested that the Applicant
provide clarification that the 200-foot open space buffer is acceptable, and also that some
natural landscaping and noise reduction be provided along the buffer.
Catherine Morrow made a suggestion for wording to be included such that the 200-foot buffer
identified on the quadrant plan, which shows 100 feet in the right-of-way on the subject property, is
AMENDED MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Smith seconded that the Planning
Commission finds the motion acceptable as amended.
VOTE: Motion passed.
Vice Chair Cyrus asked for a vote on the main motion as amended.
VOTE: Motion passed.
Catherine Morrow asked Dee Van Donselaar to draft the necessary changes and return the
motion for Vice Chair Cyrus’ signature.
IV. DELIBERATION – File No. TA-04-4 – A Text Amendment to Amend Deschutes County
Code, Chapter 18.04 and 18.113 to Reflect Recent Changes in State Statute Regarding
Destination Resorts – Terri Payne, Associate Planner
Commissioner Turner asked about the purpose of this recommendation and what it was
supposed to achieve. Terri Payne stated that the Planning Commission made a
recommendation on this text amendment to destination resorts two years ago, but because of
that time lapse, there was a discussion with the Board after the public hearing on
December 4th. After that hearing, the Board basically said, “Make another recommendation if
you’d like.” The Planning Commissioners can therefore decide if they agree with the
recommendation that was made two years ago, given new information that has come in over
the last two years and how things have changed, or whether they would rather stay with the
original recommendation made by the Planning Commission in 2004.
Commissioner Pace added that she voted in favor at the time because she thought it was required
to be in compliance with state law.
Terri Payne mentioned the work session and public hearing were already attended by the
Commissioners, and copies of documents that were previously sent to the Board which have been
provided to the current Commissioners. She further proposed to outline the public comments
received last week and also to respond to questions emailed to her by Commissioner Smith.
Terri Payne summarized that all of the comments received regarding the proposed changes are
negative, and some correspondence also includes negative comments towards any additional
destination resorts in the County. The general opposition to more destination resorts is not
pertinent to this application, which is a very specific request to change the criteria, not the number,
of allowed destination resorts. However, most of the comments were on point and covered
potential impacts of additional residential housing in destination resorts, including traffic concerns,
lack of funds for road maintenance and repair, impacts on public services such as sheriff, fire and
schools, and the high cost of resort housing which makes it unaffordable for local residents. Also
mentioned in comments received were impacts to the natural environment, wildlife and unknown
fiscal impacts such as property taxes and services provided to the resorts. In summary, much of
the information seems to be unknown, and most public comments indicated it would be better to
hold off on making the change to the ratio until we know more of the facts. There was concern
about who is “watching” the destination resorts in operation now and the suburban nature toward
which the developments seem to be moving.
Regarding Commissioner Smith’s questions to Terri Payne: (1) Current reporting information
provided by the resorts – Eagle Crest has provided for the individually owned units counted as
overnight units with a total of 143. We still do not have other information such as the owners of the
units, the days the units were available for rent and the number of days they were rented. We are
still working with Eagle Crest to try to obtain that information. (2) Traffic information/impacts
regarding Eagle Crest and Thornburgh – The Commissioners received information from an Eagle
Crest traffic study in their packets and the concern was that there wasn’t anything to compare it to.
Terri found traffic counts on Cline Falls Highway for 2005 in three places, but average daily traffic
counts don’t necessarily compare to the trip generation in the reports so the information may not
be useful. Most of the conditions of approval for resorts that have been approved do contain some
sort of specific requirements to work with ODOT for traffic improvements. Eagle Crest did this.
There was a question as to why the Applicant is requesting this change and what is driving it. Terri
Payne stated that it was a market issue – the demand right now is for second homes rather than
individual rental units. Another question was whether we are currently out of compliance regarding
the bonding issue, because the new Code says the first 50 units must be built. This only applies if
the Applicant chooses to phase. Right now we are not out of compliance on that issue. We are,
however, out of compliance on the investments required because we do have a less strict
requirement for “up front” investments. This is not in compliance with current Code and should
probably be changed.
Another question concerned the difference in the language about the housing ratio in the statute
and the Goal. It appears that this is more of a legal question for the attorneys, who give different
The Commissioners are facing a policy decision and can make another recommendation if they
choose. The criteria are the statute, the Goal and the County Comprehensive Plan. Approval may
be recommended as proposed by the Applicant, with or without staff changes. Staff
recommended taking out the bonding for the first 50 units, because the statute does not allow it.
Staff recommends retaining the 2:1 ratio until the legal issues are sorted out; staff also suggested
adding annual reporting requirements which are part of the statute that were not in the original
proposal, and adding language on conservation easements for specified resources, which is
another part of the statute not in the original proposal.
Commissioner Pace asked for clarification on Eagle Crest. Terri stated they have 143 individually-
owned units they count as overnight, in addition to 100 units in the hotel and timeshares. There is
a total of around 500 overnight units. Commissioner Pace quoted some of the numbers in the
Kittleson Report and further discussion ensued about units in Eagle Crest.
Commissioner Turner and Vice Chair Cyrus stated possible conflicts of interest due to
Commissioner Turner performing work for destination resorts and Vice Chair Cyrus having an
interest in a potential destination resort. Commissioner Turner did not feel that this was a problem
and he could be non-partial; Vice Chair Cyrus will refrain from voting on this proposal.
Catherine Morrow summarized the process for resort approval, including the preliminary master
plan, the final master plan and tentative and final plats for various phases. The phases must be
consistent with the master plan.
Commissioner Otteni asked if the total of individual units could be averaged in with various resorts
owned by the same corporation. Terri stated that each has different criteria, and that when it
changes from a resort to a destination resort, the average is taken across the whole development.
The Commissioners discussed the morphing of destination resorts which started as economic
development tools and became gated communities.
Commissioner Quatre asked why the destination resort owners claim they have only four months
to make money, but they make money all year long and are still proliferating. Commissioners
Otteni and Pace discussed the percentages of owners who are living in the area year-round.
Commissioner Pace stated that she had called Eagle Crest to request more information than what
was in the Kittleson Report but was refused. She also spoke to two realtors and property
maintenance staff at Eagle Crest. She was told none of them had ever heard of a deed restriction
on the units and that the “best deal” was to rent full-time to locals.
Commissioner Smith stated he had done quite a bit of research and had concerns about the
effects of destination resort impacts; however, he was setting all of that aside for this deliberation
and felt that whether or not they were good for communities, there were three or four main issues
to be considered. One was the receipt of negative input from the public with the exception of
developers and lobbyists who supported this proposal. Another was legal questions which might
need to be addressed in the legislature and could cause problems with the proposal. He also did
not feel the Applicants have demonstrated a real need for the 2.5 ratio, only that they want it. He
felt that the change to a 2.5 ratio should not be approved.
Commissioner Otteni discussed rental units versus second homes and the amount of time units
might be rented for certain months of the year. Commissioner Quatre did not feel this was a
negative impact on the community. Commissioner Pace felt that this meant units could be sold,
occupied during the summer and used without interference from renters most of the time. This
could change the ratio of overnight units because of rental contracts.
Commissioner Quatre suggested recommending some way to mitigate impacts on the roads such
as shuttles for resort employees.
Commissioner Turner wanted to make a distinction between residential rentals and overnight
rentals. He did not feel the resorts are counting residential rentals in the 2:1 or 2.5:1 ratios
because of the deed restriction requirement, and we have no way of knowing whether those units
are counted or not. A different product is provided for overnight accommodations, and the
investment may not be as good as other types of investments. He feels it is important to keep an
open mind about the proposal, especially in light of the public testimony which may be only from
one segment of the population and does not include the construction industry, consideration of the
contribution to tax base and high-paying construction jobs.
Commissioner Cyrus summarized the history of Eagle Crest and its bolstering of the tax base of
the Redmond School District. He further stated the need for a balance of starter homes and other
types of development.
Commissioner Pace pointed out that increased employment from construction jobs may not be
continuous unless there is a stream of projects to provide it. She felt that a balance of
development could take place in a better way within the urban growth boundary.
Commissioner Smith wanted to try to put the pros and cons aside in light of the fact that
destination resorts are already in the area and do provide jobs and a tax base; he felt that in this
case, the only thing the Applicants are concerned about is the 2.5:1 ratio, not the deed restrictions
or anything else. That is really the only item to be considered at this point and the focus is on the
2:1 ratio versus the 2.5:1, which may not be that much of a difference. The destination resort
developers do not really need a boost at this point, and it appears the public does not want the
change. There seems to be very little reason to change the current ratio and some big reasons
Commissioner Quatre mentioned bringing the issue up at Leadership Bend, just to see how much
people knew about it. She felt that 75% had strong feelings, even if they did not have destination
resorts in their backyards. So it is not just the special interest groups that have concerns or
opinions against the change in ratio.
Catherine Morrow asked if the Commissioners would like to make a recommendation to the Board.
MOTION: Commissioner Otteni recommended keeping the current 2:1 ratio and 45-week
requirement. He did not have an opinion on the bonding issue.
Commissioner Pace recommended keeping everything the same except for compliance issues:
the investment and conservation easement, and also reporting and bonding requirements.
Terri Payne explained that the bonding issue is not an issue if the amendment is not adopted.
Bonding is not currently allowed, so if the current text is retained, the bonding issue is gone.
SECOND: Commissioner Smith.
Catherine Morrow asked if everyone understood the motion. Terri Payne re-stated that the only
actual compliance issue is the investment issue. The reporting issue is more of an enforcement
issue and we are not out of compliance if it is not added. The only place we are more lenient than
the statute right now is in investment. The conservation easement and reporting are part of
Commissioner Pace reiterated that the three items under consideration are infrastructure amounts,
conservation easements and the reporting requirement.
Commissioner Quatre agreed with the motion.
Commissioner Pace agreed.
Commissioner Turner said he could not support the motion from an economic development
perspective, and that the testimony everyone heard dealt with natural resources and traffic issues
which must be solved individually by each resort development. He felt that there has not been
enough consideration to support a motion at this time.
Commissioner Smith felt that destination resorts continue to provide benefits to the community,
and keeping the ratio the same is not a slap in the face to that community. We really do not need
to give a “boost” by changing the ratio.
Commissioner Otteni felt that there is a problem with destination resorts turning into virtual gated
communities with too much exclusivity, which is causing a loss of public support.
Terri Payne restated the current Motion: To retain the current Code and only change (1) updating
the infrastructure; (2) add the annual reporting requirement; and (3) add language on conservation
VOTE: Commissioner Quatre: Yes.
Commissioner Pace: Yes.
Commissioner Turner: No.
Commissioner Smith: Yes.
Commissioner Otteni: Yes.
Commissioner Cyrus: Abstained.
V. TRAINING – Statewide Planning Goals 6 and 7 – Terri Payne, Associate Planner
VI. UPDATE – Comprehensive Plan Update – Terri Payne, Associate Planner
VII. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN
Catherine Morrow mentioned that Peter Russell, a former ODOT employee, will be replacing
Steve Jorgensen as Senior Transportation Planner for the County. She also summarized some of
the current work on the Comprehensive Plan update. She further stated that the Board of
Commissioners will have to consider at least six Measure 37 claims a week starting in January,
due to the recent large increase in the number of submittals.
Applications have been submitted for a transportation plan assessment of the County’s GSP and
for a transportation system plan update grant.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be on
Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 N.W. Wall
Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701.
Sher Buckner, Planning Secretary