Aspen Lakes in the rough

Wrangling over resort mapping continues

Deschutes County Commissioners once again took public testimony on a contentious destination resort mapping proposal last Wednesday. The controversy has centered on an amendment that would allow the Aspen Lakes subdivision to remain on the county's newly streamlined destination resort map.

Being on the map doesn't mean Aspen Lakes will become a destination resort, but opponents of such a development have nevertheless fought hard against the subdivision's inclusion.

There are two significant land-use planning steps required to build a destination resort. First, the project must be mapped on the county destination resort map. The second, and significantly more difficult hurdle, is that the project must be sited by the county planning staff. This means complying with all the county and state land-use codes, restrictions and requirements.

There is some doubt that Aspen Lakes can clear that second hurdle as the rules stand now.

"The county's position from the executive level and from the staff level is that for a cluster subdivision to become a destination resort will require a change in state law," said county commissioner Dennis Luke.

The Cyrus family, who developed Aspen Lakes, maintains that destination resort status is critical to the longterm viability of the golf course enterprise (see related story, page 1).

A majority of the speakers spoke in opposition to the special amendment that would allow Aspen Lakes to remain on the resort map; however three current members of the seven-person planning commission spoke in favor of the amendment. Christen Brown and Merle Irvine spoke as representatives of the planning commission in its support of the contested amendment.

Planning commissioner Richard Klyce spoke as a private citizen. Klyce reported that the Cyrus family has worked with the county planning staff from the outset of their project at what is now Aspen Lakes. He maintains that the Cyruses development plans as represented to the county staff and planning commission were always to build a cluster subdivision and then convert it to a destination resort.

"They consulted with country planners. They were told you can do it this way," Klyce said, "By denying the amendment that would allow the Aspen Lakes property to remain on the map you would be telling business owners, go ahead and make your business investment today; we may pull the rug out from under you tomorrow. You will be telling investors that representations made by county employees today will be subject to whatever political wind is blowing tomorrow."

Brenda Pace, a former county planning commissioner, raised the issue of fairness to existing and future destination resorts. The current law requires destination resorts to "build or bond" (reserve funding) for their overnight housing before they are able to sell lots. Cluster subdivisions have no such requirement. Pace also objected to Aspen Lakes using their covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) to differentiate between themselves and other cluster subdivisions. All but 20 to 30 of the 100-plus Aspen Lakes owners have signed CC&Rs that preclude them from objecting to the development of a destination resort at Aspen Lakes.

Pace argued that the county commissioners have always maintained that they will have nothing to do with enforcing or being involved with the CC&Rs on subdivisions.

Pace's final argument was that "Under 18128.2, cluster subdivisions are required to have open space, not just open space as a percentage but specific parcels...these parcels must be deeded as open space, and must remain as open space unless the whole project is brought within urban growth boundary."

Pace said, "The county was very generous with Aspen Lakes...no deed restrictions were recorded as required for the Aspen Lakes cluster development. Then (then-planning-director) George Read signed an agreement that totally gave the open space lands away. We have an ordinance on one hand and an approved project on the other hand. Aspen Lakes does not now comply... the rules that were written for everyone only apply to some of them."

In a later interview with The Nugget, Matt Cyrus disputed the entirety of Pace's argument against Aspen Lakes' position.

"She was not involved and she wouldn't have any idea what she was talking about," he said. "She was not there or present."

Aspen Lakes neighbor Rob Corrigan has argued against the conversion of the Aspen Lakes subdivision for a number of years, but he also offered "Any discussion of destination resort conversion aside, it's clear that Aspen Lakes is a major component of the Sisters Country economy; no one wants to see it anything short of successful."

After listening to 16 speakers over two hours, and taking significant additional written testimony, the period for oral public comment was closed. Written comment was accepted until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 6. Final deliberations will begin at the board meeting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 7.