Loading...
2000-819-Minutes for Meeting July 26,2000 Recorded 8/2/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 819 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-819 * Vol -Page Pfinted: 08/04/2000 11:50:52 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Aug. 2, 2000; 4:27 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 76 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK K P NCHED AG 0 4 2000 ETES �1 OUB �/ �2� { Board of Commissioners MN►zY ;,,Llr '��Ni1uLLY� SO N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 COUNTY CLERK (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.co.deschutes.orus Linda L. Swearingen MINUTES Dennis R. Luke Tom DeWoif DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 269 2000 1130 NW Harriman Street, Bend, Oregon Administration Building Commissioners present were Linda L. Swearingen, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also in attendance were Rick Isham and Bruce White, Legal Counsel; Greg Brown, Sheriff; Mike Maier, County Administrator; Paul Blikstad, Chris Schmoyer, Kevin Harrison and Tracy White, Community Development; George Kolb and Tom Blust, Road Department; and Becky Jackson, Parole & Probation. Also present were members of the media and approximately 25 citizens. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the Board meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. CITIZEN INPUT There was none. 2. DESIGNATION of Wednesday, July 26, as Parole and Probation Day in Deschutes County; and RECOGNITION of Deschutes County's Parole and Probation Staff. Sheriff Greg Brown and Becky Jackson of the Sheriffs Office gave an overview of the caseload of the County's Parole and Probation Officers and staff, and the impressive job they are doing. The Commissioners praised those involved and the difficult work they are doing. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, July 26, 2000 Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 21 Pages 3. PUBLIC HEARING Regarding a Proposed Development Agreement with Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership (Member of the West Bend Traffic Consortium). BLIKSTAD: Proper notice has been given; and my department has received one letter and a few phone calls on this matter. The County establishes outside improvement requirements for destination resorts, and this proposed resort would be located just within the City of Bend. This would also vest standards of criteria for destination resorts to those in effect today. I refer to adding additional criteria (see Exhibits A and B), and request that Deborah McMahon of the City comment. LUKE: (To the audience) This is a draft and the first hearing; and the Commissioners won't act on this today, as we need to wait for the City to complete its work on changes. BRUCE WHITE: This is still in a work in progress, and a redline copy of the development agreement is available to the public. The Commissioners aren't here to approve the destination resort, but by law a public hearing must be held. Whatever is in the development agreement must comply with the County's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance standards. The City of Bend is in attendance to address effect of transportation. A traffic study entered into record by the applicant, and they state that they can satisfy the required criteria. The City of Bend needs to give its opinion as to whether the application will satisfy this criteria. The assumptions of the development agreement and the factual information of the assumptions probably won't change much. There are a number of issues with the development agreement that the County, the City and the applicant will have to work on. LUKE: I don't want the County to duplicate the process; and I find it difficult for the Commissioners to proceed until the City completes its work, as the City is the final arbitrator. S WEARINGEN: If the City is satisfied, the County probably will be as well. WHITE: I feel the City should proceed first, but the Commissioners may want to consider a joint hearing with the City to address this issue; and the City has had a public hearing already. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 DEBORAH MCMAHON OF THE CITY OF BEND: There are significant system -wide problems on the west side of town to address. A solution was brought forth by the consortium to solve those problems; and to capture all the details of that solution, the development agreement must be done. In order to make sure the City is satisfied, a comprehensive traffic study was required; and this work has been done and reviewed. At this point we are just finishing up the details of the development agreement, with the same format for each of the consortium members with slight differences in each individual agreement. A public hearing has been held on the concept and structure of the development agreement; and the City will schedule an additional time to be available for public comment. This will most likely be the second meeting in August, but the City Council will determine that at their next meeting. COMMISSIONERS: We would like to discuss this issue in a general, joint meeting with the City. S WEARINGEN: I am not interested in a joint hearing on this issue unless it is narrowed to this portion of it, involving the County. LUKE: What we're looking at is a development agreement to make the County a pass- through for money from the developer through the County to the City. They have not submitted any plans for the development to be approved by the County; and the development agreement does not include any new development in this destination resort. It is simply an agreement for a pass-through of certain funds. WHITE: The County is obligated, as it cannot change the approval standards, which will be vested for a period of seven years. These are the County approval standards relating to off-site transportation standards, and the developer must meet those. The County Road Department and the Oregon Department of Transportation are very concerned that we still leave this open as part of the approval process to address whatever they need as a part of this facilities agreement. The development agreement will make very clear that we are vesting, or determining or making assumptions only with respect to transportation facilities within the city limits of Bend as they exist as of the date of the agreement. Future hookups into City water and sewer are not a part of this agreement. Since the County acts as a pass-through, I recommend an indemnity agreement from the City. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 DEWOLF: Will this destination resort would eventually hook up to city water and/or sewer? MCMAHON: They may eventually, but not as a part of this agreement. WHITE: This does bring up a good point — we are vesting all standards. We are not saying the standards are satisfied, but what we are doing is saying that all the standards that relate to this will stay this same from this day until seven years out. To avoid budgeting for this, the County needs to be able to assign the County's right to payment over to the City so it doesn't have to pass through the County's budget process. LUKE: I want to remind you all that this is a draft agreement, and there is time to work out all of these details. DEWOLF: I am concerned about Road Department conditions and conclusions, and ODOT's objections. TOM BLUST OF THE ROAD DEPARTMENT: I want to make sure this agreement doesn't limit what improvements and/or dedications the Road Department and the Oregon Department of Transportation can do in areas outside of the City limits. This is addressed in the staff report, and copies are available to the public. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the public hearing 10: 30 a.m. NANCY CRAVEN, AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT: I would like to introduce Dike Dame, the owners' representative of Cascade Highlands, Joe Weston, one of the owners of Cascade Highlands; and Tom Walker of W & H Pacific, who has been working with us on most of the engineering issues on the consortium; and Jim Atkins, who has been handling many of the management issues. The application for a development agreement was submitted and a statement filed in support, along with a significant traffic report from Kittleson & Associates. We have been meeting for months with the City, and have held workshops and public hearings; and some modifications were made to the agreement at the County's request. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 We submitted a draft development agreement at the request of the County's legal staff, and made some of the modifications that were previously discussed. Not all of the changes were made; and we in fact added the City as a party to that agreement as of last week, rather than having separate development agreements. We are continuing to have discussions with the City and the County's legal staff in regard to the exact framework of the documents. After a brief review of the information received from County legal staff, we feel we can address and resolve the issues raised, and that there will be no problems with making changes as required by ODOT and the County Road Department. We feel that the County appears to have a clear understanding of its limited, although important, role and the process. S WEARINGEN: I suggest that the hearing be continued until a time certain when there is a more finalized document. KEVIN HARRISON OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Gave an overview of the logistics of this public hearing.) There is some benefit in continuing a hearing rather than closing a hearing and scheduling a new one, as notice would not have to be given again. A time and date certain would be decided today on a continuance. Media notices will be done to keep the public updated on the process. A general discussion on a date in late August occurred. DIKE DAME, THE OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVE FOR CASCADE HIGHLANDS AND OTHER ENTITIES: (Gave an overview of the history of the project.) The intent is to cooperate with local homeowners, the City and the County to resolve any concerns. MCMAHON: (In response to a question from Commissioner Luke), the issue of Colorado Avenue is completely separate and outside the scope of this agreement. ANN WHEELER: (Representing the Friends of Bend). I appreciate the County leaving the record open. I realize this is not a hearing on what the development will look like, but that the impacts of the proposal will be on the City and its residents. This is an interesting process, making cooperation between the City and County necessary. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 There are about 500 people involved with Friends of Bend, whose goal is to educate local citizens on the process and what is going on in the City. We are not taking a position on this development since it would be premature. We are concerned that the fact that the proposal sets a limit on the amount of dollars Cascade Highlands would contribute to the southern bridge. Since there will be an environmental study done on the bridge which may result in more mitigation being required, or perhaps a more expensive bridge, this is an important issue. Giving Cascade Highlands a guarantee on a dollar amount may be very risky to the City and its residents. S WEARINGEN: The County will certainly take some direction from the City. ANN WHEELER: The citizens of the City also need to interact with County on this, and not just at the City level. DEWOLF: All this does is restrict them to $500,000 for the bridge. Are you saying this may have a further impact on the bridge issue and the traffic numbers at each intersection? WHEELER: There is no final plan yet, but because of the size of the project, it could place a burden on non -consortium entities, that may have to address the greater traffic situation. I request that the County require more details on traffic issues, as the public hearing previously held did not address this specifically. Negotiations with ODOT are occurring separately, but the City and County should be involved in this negotiation process as well. In the proposal is a reference to the City and County cooperating with Cascade Highland for securing for future approvals, which is very vague and may suggest the project will receive special treatment from the County and the City. WHITE: I have already asked that clause be removed, as it could be misunderstood. The County will take this on as a regulatory body as usual. A general discussion between the Commissioners ensued regarding the intersections of Colorado Avenue and Century Drive, and Mount Washington Drive and Century Drive. Bruce White indicated that it is his understanding that this is covered by the consortium's proposal. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 BARBARA MCAUSLAND OF BEND: I thought this was to be concluded today. She read from a statement, which she explained is premature. She submitted her written statement (Exhibit D). PAUL DEWEY OF BEND: (Representing the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, commented on public and private land use issues) It appears what is proposed keeps shifting, and there seems to be no idea when a final proposal will be available for review and comment. I have attended some hearings hosted by the City, and it is all very conceptual. This is the first opportunity the public has had to testify on the development agreement. There is no such thing in the State Statute as conceptual development agreement. The draft development agreement does not meet standards in regard to the seven-year term; the Statute reads differently as to when the time period begins. It appears that the details are not readily apparent on this agreement, but don't comply with Statute. There is also a reference to heights of at least fifty feet, which is in essence asking you for a variance. I want to encourage the Commissioners to not let the City take the lead; and please do further review of traffic study done since traffic impacts may also result from smaller developments, COCC expansion and other developments. BOB TUCKER: Can I reserve my pubic testimony until the next hearing? (He was advised that reservations are not made, but that he is welcome to sign up to give testimony at that time) BEVERLEY HEALY: I am interested because I live in the area, in Broken Top, and now Cascade Highlands will now be my back yard. I also hold a seat on the Board of Directors of Mt. Bachelor, so any future development on the west side of Bend that may bring in potential skiers is important to me, too. BRUCE RONNING: I am a staff member of Bend Metro Park & Recreation District, and want to call the Board's attention to the open space, parks, trails and other amenities that Cascade Highlands has agreed to provide outside of the development agreement. I ask that the written record remain open, as I will submit my comments in writing. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 HOWARD PAINE: (Of the Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County - ARLUDeCo) My group will review the latest documents. I believe the $500,000 contribution toward the cost of the southern bridge falls short of the potential cost of the impact of the traffic to come, and that there are a lot of questions still in the air. I feel the impact will go far beyond the west side of Bend, and that 600 homes would generate 6,000 daily trips, impacting the entire city; and add to that traffic generated from the 480 room hotel and additional retail space. DEWOLF: Have you read the Kittleson traffic report? PAINE: I have not, and what I have stated is my opinion and that it's pretty obvious to me this will happen. Who will pick up the cost of traffic throughout the balance of the city? My group contends there should be no mitigation cap in the agreement; and we are also concerned about allowing development outside urban growth boundary within Bend's urban reserve area. The comprehensive plan states that this should be reserved for long-term growth expansion. He submitted a letter into the record (Exhibit E). DEWOLF: This was mapped years ago as a destination resort, and public input was gathered at that time. SWEARINGEN: We will continue the public hearing on August 23rd, and news releases will be done. The City needs to complete its work, and the public needs to keep itself informed on how their work is progressing. 4. AN ORAL DECISION on Two Plan Amendments and Zone Change Requests (PA -99-4 & ZC-99-1 and PA -99-5 & ZC-99-3), Barclay Meadows and the Sisters School District SWEARINGEN: On Monday we outlined some of our concerns. We spoke about having an intent to rezone, and setting up some parameters so that this can be accomplished. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 BRUCE WHITE: I raised a series of issues with the development agreement, and I think I sent you a memo with those outlined. I did have a two-hour conversation yesterday with Tia Lewis. I don't think we're both on the same page yet, but we did come a fair distance in terms of resolving some of the issues I raised. I think there are still going to be some uncertainties, some of which may be solved by the scope of the transportation study. For example, on the issue of McKinney Butte, because that is somewhat uncertain as to its status in our plan; it is certainly not on any city plan. It may well be that the traffic study shows that even if that is not built, they can meet the requirements at the intersections of Pine and Locust. Are there particular things that you want me to address; or how would you like to proceed here? DEWOLF: We raised a number of issues on Monday, and then we get an e-mail with sixteen concerns and outstanding issues with the development agreement (Exhibit Q. Unless all sixteen of those have been addressed, I have a hard time even voting on this today. I had a number of questions, so I'm glad that Neil and Barbara are here. WHITE: I think what we need to try to do is to resolve these questions through staff. DEWOLF: So, let me ask staff, what is the timing on the Sisters comp plan? CHRIS SCHMOYER: I had sent an e-mail to the City of Sisters' to Neil Thompson, and he responded but I was unable to open the document he sent me. I tried calling him but we haven't hooked up yet. DEWOLF: So we don't know what the timing is yet on the Sisters' transportation system plan, either. SWEARINGEN: May I suggest that you ask the questions, and we'll take a recess for a few minutes and get those answers, and come back. DEWOLF: So, it would be the timing of the comp plan, the timing of the TSP; and if the TSP is going to be completed in September, why we shouldn't just wait until September to finalize this so that we'd have a TSP in place. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 The other has to do with in general where we are dealing with outright allowed uses, versus conditional uses that other cities might have in the IL zone - specifically the four areas that were heavy industrial use. Would we, or could we, without destroying our relationship with the Sisters City Council, condition an agreement like this whereby they would amend their ordinances in order to make these conditional uses require a city process, rather than an outright use. I was specifically looking at page 21 of the hearings officer's decision on that. Finally, this development agreement expires seven years after the date that it is signed, so we have fifty -foot setbacks for twenty- foot high buildings and 100 foot setbacks for taller structures. But at the end of seven years, there is nothing to protect that fifty -foot setback. How do we respond, or how does the City respond to those concerns? Those are the questions I would like answered. (Planning officials and others adjourned to another room to address these questions) 5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of a Decision on File No. MP -003 -CU -0011 (Appeal No. A-007), Overturning the Hearing Officer's Decision (Applicant: George Cook; Property: Gentry Loop, Bend). Tracy White, Deschutes County planner, was asked if the applicant has seen this decision as written. She replied that he has not; that normally applicants are represented by counsel who would prepare the decision. Paul Blikstad further explained that since the applicant does not have counsel, his department is writing the decision. Chair Swearingen stated that this reflects what the Board has agreed to already. Tracy White indicated that she and Kevin Harrison looked at code further and clarified some language. Commissioner Luke requested that the spelling of Gentry Loop be changed in the conditions of approval. He expressed his disappointed this was not given to applicant. DEWOLF: I move approval, subject to legal review. LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 CONSENT AGENDA LUKE: I move approval. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: 6. SIGNATURE of an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Memorandum of Agreement with the Oregon Department of Human Services for the Prevention Coordinator Position 7. SIGNATURE of Order No. 2000-086, Providing for an Increase in Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste by High Country Disposal within the Redmond UGB 8. SIGNATURE of Order No. 2000-085, Authorizing the Sale of Properties Located off Dale Road, Gerking Market Road, Deschutes Market Road, 61s' Street at Gift Road, and Innes Market Road to Acquire a Project 9. SIGNATURE of Fund Exchange Agreement No. 18238, Addressing the Responsibilities of Deschutes County and the Oregon Department of Transportation Regarding the Exchange of STP Funds for State Funds 10. SIGNATURE of a Letter Appointing Peter Cecil to the River Bend Estates Special Road District, with a Term Ending December 31, 2002 11. CHAIR SIGNATURE of an Oregon Liquor Control Commission License Renewal for the Deschutes Country Store 12. CHAIR SIGNATURE of an Oregon Liquor Control Commission License Renewal for Sisters K.O.A. Campground 13. CHAIR SIGNATURE of an Oregon Liquor Control Commission License Renewal for La Pine Bowling Center, Inc. 14. SIGNATURE of Order No. 2000-090, Amending Orders No. 98-052 and 98- 089, Concerning the Sale of County -Owned Property Located In Sunriver CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 15. APPROVAL of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extennsion/4-H County Service District for Two Weeks in the Amount of $311.20 (FY 1999-2000) and $1,248.60 (FY 2000-2001). LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF CHAIR SIGNATURE of Health Insurance Benefit Contract between Deschutes County and the Extension/4-11 County Service District. Rick Isham explained that the substance of the agreement is fine, and they are working out some details on the notification process during the course of the agreement. He said they will give notice that they would have 90 days to withdraw if the premiums go up mid -year; they would have to pay for those 90 days while they decide what to do. This gives the County the right to amend the plan; and the same thing if the County has to lower benefits. LUKE: I move approval for the agreement with our partners, subject to legal review and the agreement of the partners. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. LUKE: I move that Mike Maier be given the authority to sign these documents. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 16. APPROVAL of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District for Two Weeks in the Amount of $7,648.34 (FY 1999-2000) and $189527.64 (FY 2000-2001). LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF CHAIR SIGNATURE of Health Insurance Benefit Contract between Deschutes County and the 9-1-1 County Service District. LUKE: I move approval for the agreement with our partners, subject to legal review and the agreement of the partners. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. LUKE: I move that Mike Maier have the authority to sign these documents. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. CONVENE JOINTLY AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT, BLACK BUTTE RANCH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT AND THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 17. CONSIDERATION of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement Amending the 9-1-1 Emergency Reporting System (to Revise Membership and Operating Rules, and to Reflect Changes Due to Moving into a New Facility) DEWOLF: I move approval of this intergovernmental agreement. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 18. APPROVAL of the Accounts Payable Vouchers for Two Weeks in the Amount of $895,743.40 (FY 1999-2000) and $944,843.50 (FY 2000-2001) LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 19. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA a) CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of the Following Oregon Liquor Control License Renewal Applications for Black Butte Ranch: Glaze Meadow Gold Course Snack Bar; Black Butte ranch Lodge; Black Butte Ranch Pro Shop; and Big Meadow Golf Course Snack Bar; and DEWOLF:I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. b) CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Health Insurance Benefit Contract between Deschutes County and the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council DEWOLF: I move that Mike Maier be approved to sign this document. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 c) CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Health Insurance Benefit Contract between Deschutes County and the Deschutes County Fair Association DEWOLF: I move that Mike Maier be approved to sign this document. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. d) CONSIDERATION of Signature of Contract for Artwork Rick Isham stated that a signature is needed to authorize the contract for artwork for the new Health and Human Services Building. LUKE: I move that Commissioner DeWolf be authorized to sign this agreement, subject to legal review and being within budget. SWEARINGEN: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. e) CONSIDERATION of Continuation of Comprehensive Plan Codification Bruce White asked that the County comprehensive plan codification be continued until August 23rd. Chair Swearingen agreed to this continuation. CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEM #4. CHRIS SCHMOYER: In response to the status of the expected adoption dates of the TSP and the Sisters Comp Plan, Neal indicated that these would be processed concurrently, and a draft would go to City Council in January 2001, with adoption expected within six months. In regard to the setbacks and the seven-year agreement, they could possibly be handled through a deed restriction or the adoption of a limited use combining zone that would need to be created and adopted by the City. SWEARINGEN: So we could go ahead and say that we are going to give you an intent to rezone based on the City ... Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 BRUCE WHITE: We could do it as an option. I volunteered to help the City if they need me to supply some language for a limited use combining zone. It either could be done through this limited use combining zone that the City would adopt, or through an alternative, such as a deed restriction. If you do a deed restriction that is held by the City, that might work; or it could be held by adjoining land owners. S WEARINGEN: Doesn't it just make more sense to ask them to go through the process? WHITE: I preference is to not get into things where you have to bargain on individual deed restrictions. It would be preferable to do it through some kind of limited use combining zone. DEWOLF: All I want to get at is the fact that the development agreement expires in seven years, and it's not a matter of faith in the current City Council or the current developers. It will be a different City Council and different developers ten years from now. What we want is the intent from this point to carry through ten years from now, twenty years from now. WHITE: I am certainly more than willing to be helpful to the City in terms of providing language to them based on the kind of things we've done with our limited use combining zone. Obviously that would have to go through their Council. SWEARINGEN: So we can basically agree today that we will overturn the Hearings Officer's decision based on the following criteria. If the City doesn't respond to what we have asked, then nothing is going to happen. DEWOLF: May I suggest that we have this as a point of discussion when we meet with the Sisters City Council on August 3rd, and work through this together? WHITE: One way to do this is to announce to all the parties that you are going to be there and you're going to have that limited discussion, and they are able to come, too, and provide written comments on what they hear. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 LUKE: The difference between the City's light industrial zone and the Sisters urban area light industrial zone is that the County administers the urban one. I would go on the record that I someone comes in and wants to put an asphalt plant or a wrecking yard, I would call up the appeal without a charge to the person appealing. That's one vote. DEWOLF: That's an outright use; there is no appeal. SCHMOYER: It would be a land use application for a site plan. LUKE: The other thing is that we are in a transition; this is a situation where the impact is on the City. Although it is in the County, it is their property. It is where they want to develop and is where their future is, whether we do it now or ten years from now. This is an area that will be in the City of Sisters. It really should be their determination, and they have an elected body, and I believe that elected body has the ability and the legal responsibility to properly maintain that property. DEWOLF: I absolutely agree with that. The only caveat is that it is not in the City now, and the decision we make has implications for the future. When I get an e-mail that includes sixteen different outstanding issues with the development agreement two days before we are supposed to make a final decision, and questions that I would like to discuss with the City Council arise, that's where I have difficulty with this. It would be great if our legal counsel had met with the City's legal counsel and planning staff and resolved these sixteen issues. We don't have a 150 -day rule here. If this can get resolved in a couple of weeks, great. That is all I am suggesting. There are a bunch of outstanding issues here, and I would rather have it done right than to deal with the consequences later on. WHITE: Let me suggest another way. We are going to have to have our own hearing on the development agreement, as we haven't had one yet. The City has. One thing that you could put in your resolution of intent is that there be a development agreement that covers certain points, obviously subject to the development agreement hearing process. DEWOLF: And we could hold a public hearing at that date. So this intent now would be subject to the resolution of that development agreement, being satisfactory to all parties. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 17 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 WHITE: I don't know how you want to outline the paraffieters of that. That might be one way of handling it, as you still have to have a process of getting the County into the development agreement as a party to it. That includes a hearing. DEWOLF: We are going to have a public hearing at one point or another. WHITE: The concern that we had before was not getting too involved because you didn't want to pre judge where you are going on the merits of the application. It was kind of a situation where the City held their hearings, but the County was not in a position to make a decision because the record before you was still open. Now the record is closed, and you've come to where you are starting to think about making a decision. DEWOLF: Let me be really clear. I have no problem with moving forward with the development agreement. The voters of Sisters have approved this, and the City Council and ODOT have reach resolution on transportation systems. I have some issues personally with the fact that there are outright uses rather than conditional uses. I would like to see these resolved, if they can be resolved through a development agreement through which we would have to have a public hearing, I am fine with moving forward - as long as we condition our decision today on the results of that public hearing and final development agreement. We can have the discussions, whether at a public hearing or a meeting with the City Council. I want to move forward here. WHITE: What I would like to do is come back to you with a draft resolution of intent that lays out a series of points after I have had a chance to review it with City staff and the applicant, so we have an idea of how we are going to get from point A to point Z. What I am hearing you say today is "show us a way to get there through a resolution of intent". I can't do this with all the particulars today. You could take a vote to approve it, subject to a resolution of intent that covers certain basic points. LUKE: I believe we need to move forward. This has taken way too much time. I think we should have made our decision long ago. If we are going to move forward with the approval of a development agreement, we should have already been there. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 18 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 I am asking planning staff and legal counsel, if a motion to approve the moving of this property, to allow Sisters to incorporate it into their urban growth boundary, is appropriate, with a caveat that based upon the County's involvement in the development agreement with the City of Sisters, the owners/developers, is an appropriate motion. WHITE: I think this pushes the concept forward. [Ilii The motion is that the County intends to approve allowing the City of Sisters to move this property into its urban growth boundary. This would be subject to the County being a part of a development agreement between the County, the City and the developers. WHITE: That would cover the compatibility issue and some of the other issues about the IL zone and traffic. One of the things that would need to be in the resolution of intent is that there be an owner in place that can bind the property with the development agreement. LUKE: We need to be very clear that we are not the ones controlling the development of that property - the City of Sisters is. The subject that we're talking about for a development agreement is the conflicts of uses, such as asphalt plants, wrecking yards, and so on. WHITE: It will also cover the trip cap and those mitigation measures. DEWOLF: There are two major issues: compatibility and transportation. LUKE: The City has to be happy with the development agreement; and the County has to be somewhat happy with the development agreement. The major impact is upon the City of Sisters. Their staff, City Council and citizens are the ones who need to be involved and satisfied with this agreement. DEWOLF: I will second that motion. I have one question. In the interim, can we discuss this issue with the City Council at our next meeting with them? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 19 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 LUKE: I would point out to legal counsel that with this vote, this record is closed, and we are starting a new process of working on the development agreement, and I would think the answer would be yes. WHITE: Not until you have the written decision. S WEARINGEN: Staff could meet with the City of Sisters and bring the document back to us. WHITE: I would hope that the applicant would be responsible for coming up with the first draft of the findings. (Applicant's Counsel Tia Lewis agreed.) VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Being no further discussion, Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p. m. Dated this 26th Day of July 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 41( ATTEST: Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, July 26, 2000 inda L. Sviarmgen. Chair Dennis R. Luke, Cofnmissioner Tom DeWolf, ommissioner Page 20 of 21 Pages EXHIBITS: (A) CDD Staff Report - Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership, File #IA -00-4, from Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner, CDD (B) General information regarding development agreements - memo from Bruce White, Legal Counsel, to the Board of Commissioners, dated July 20, 2000 (C) Memo raising sixteen concerns about the Cascade Highlands Development Agreement, from Bruce White to the Board of Commissioners, dated July 26, 2000 (D) Written testimony from Barbara McAusland regarding the Cascade Highlands Development Agreement, received July 26, 2000 (E) Written testimony from Howard Paine of ARLU DeCo regarding the Cascade Highlands Development Agreement, received July 26, 2000 (F) Meeting sign -in sheet, public hearing on Cascade Highlands Development Agreement, July 26, 2000 (G) Notice of Public Hearing held on July 26, 2000, Cascade Highlands Development Agreement Minutes of Board Meeting Page 21 of 21 Pages Wednesday, July 26, 2000 [u �� Community Development Department 0 i A * . � Planning Division • Building Safety Division • Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend, Oregon • 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 • FAX (541) 385-1764 http://newberry.deschutes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2000 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner RE: Development Agreement for Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership Attached are four items for your review for the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, July 26, 2000. The four items are: • Planning Division Staff Report • Outline of Consortium proposal prepared by City staff • Statement in support of application • Executive summary west bend traffic study You have previously received a memo from Bruce White discussing development agreements. As Bruce has Indicated, we have requested that City staff attend the hearing on the 2e in case the Board has specific questions on the Consortium's proposal and the City's position on it. If you should have any questions, feel free to -contact me at your convenience (6554). Oualitu Services Performed with Pride DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT FILE NUMBER: IA-00-4�p2122��� HEARINGS BODY: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners�� APPLICANT: Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership ``' JIJL 12000, 1325 NW Flanders MAILED Portland, OR 97209 DESCHUTES o COUNTY AGENT: Nancy Craven Ball Janik LLP ' 15 SW Colorado, Suite K Bend, OR 97702 HEARING DATE: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 10:00 a.m. Deschutes County Commission Hearings Room 1130 NW Harriman Bend, OR 97701. REQUEST: An application for a Development Agreement between Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership and Deschutes County for a certain off-site road Improvement contribution within the City of Bend for a proposed destination resort project within the Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) zone adjacent to the Bend urban growth boundary. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code: Chapter 19.106, Destination Resorts 19.106.070, Approval Criteria, subsection G Oregon Revised Statutes 94.504 through 94.528 11. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. LOCATION: The property that is the subject of the proposed Development Agreement is described on the draft development agreement exhibit *X. It is identified on County Assessor's map 18-11, tax lot 100R1; 18-11-1, tax lot 300R1; 18-11-12, tax lot 301; 17-11, tax lots 500 and 6203R2. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10), and is designated Urban Reserve on the Bend Area General Plan. File No. IA -00-4 Page 1 3. REQUEST: The subject application is for a Development Agreement between the applicant and the County to specify what off-site road improvements within the City limits of Bend will be applied to the potential development of a destination resort on the subject property. The,applicant has submitted the following in support of this application: • Statement is Support of Application • Executive Summary and full copy of West Bend Traffic Study, Transportation Impact Analysis by Kittleson & Associates • Two maps: 1. West Bend Traffic Consortium, Westside Transportation Plan, Properties and Improvements Exhibit Map. 2. West Side Traffic Consortium, Cascade Highlands, Property Exhibit Map • Draft Development Agreement According to the information submitted by the applicant (as stated in Article II of the draft development agreement) the proposed destination resort is to include the following: Up to 367 single-family dwellings, 243 multi family dwellings, 128 condominiums, 40,000 square feet of retail, 18 -hole golf course, 350 -room resort hotel and a 260 -room conference hotel. The proposed limit of an off-site improvement exaction of $500,000 for the destination resort is only for those road improvements inside the city limits of Bend. This exaction Is proposed to be applied to the south bridge crossing between Reed Market Road and Century Drive over the Deschutes River. The proposed destination resort may have other off-site road improvement requirements for roads that are outside the city limits. These improvements are not covered by the Development Agreement and would be analyzed at the time of land use review of the project. 4. AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent out transmittal notices on the proposed development agreement application and received the following responses: Oregon Department of Transportation: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the proposed agreement between Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership (CHLP) and Deschutes County. CHLP is part of the West Bend Traffic Consortium and is in the initial stages of planning a 600 -unit resort on 1,300 acres west of Broken Top. ODOT has two concerns about the proposed agreement; one is operational and the second is financial. Operationally, the attached maps indicate a connection to OR 372 approximately 350 to 400 feet west of West Campbell Drive. (I realize that the proposed collector's indicated location is more for general display purposes, rather than engineering purposes.) The spacing standard for a District Level Highway with a posted speed of 55 mph is 700 feet. Any connection to OR 372 would either need to comply with ODOTs spacing standards or go through the deviation process outlined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 734 Division 51, Section 0320, 0330 and 0350. The financial concerns relate to the operational aspects of the development. The development's impacts to the system will require mitigation to OR 372 (Century Drive) and proportional contributions to Mt. Washington Ddve1OR 372. The costs for a left -tum refuge and attendant widenings as well as improvements to Mt. Washington could exceed the $500,000 ceiling cited by CHLP. The state does not agree to the cap concept as the developer must mitigate the impacts to the state transportation system. The costs of such mitigation may be less or may be more than $500,000; the amounts will be determined during site plan review. File No. IA -00-4 Page 2 Staff note: The proposed development agreement would limit the County's requirements for off- site road improvements for the proposed destination resort inside the city limits of Bend, but would not prevent the County from requiring road improvements that are outside the city limits. County Road Department: Cascade Highlands Ltd, Partnership is requesting that a public hearing be held to review a proposed development agreement for the applicant's proposed destination resort. The destination resort is being proposed for a 1,300 acre site located on Bend's west side. Cascade Highlands is a part of the West Bend Traffic Consortium that is a group of public entity and private landowners on Bend's west side. The Consortium has submitted a proposal to the city of Bend to make certain transportation facility improvements on the western side of Bend. The consortium formed in response to the projected failure of the west side transportation system. Cascade Highlands is proposing, under the submitted development agreement, to establish and limit the extent of any off-site transportation improvements that will be required in connection with their development of the property. The proposal of Cascade Highlands is to limit their obligation for off-site improvements to $500,000 that will go toward the cost of the southern bridge crossing. The consortium of west side developers has requested that its share of the total cost of the bridge be limited to $2.8 million. In reviewing the material submitted on behalf of the application, the Road Department recommends that the development agreement must include the following condition: The $500,000 limit for Cascade Highlands share of the south river crossing bridge or any other limitation on city or ODOT road facilities does not limit the county's ability to require the developer to make transportation improvements on county facilities needed for this project. Also add to Exhibit "C" of the agreement: e) Improve Skyliner Road to current county road standards along the entire length of the development. f) Any other improvements deemed necessary by Deschutes County in accordance with current Deschutes County Code. Note: Deschutes County reserves the right to require the Cascade Highlands Ltd. Partnership to build all on-site public road improvements to full county urban standards. The county also reserves its right to review all on-site road, trail and pedestrian facilities (private or public) at the time the master plan for the project is submitted. City of Bend: As previously discussed the City recommends that the County move forward with the adoption of the Cascade Highlands Development Agreement subject to the following: • The City respectfully requests that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners tentatively approve the development agreement. The applicant should be conditioned such that if the City of Bend development agreements are not approved, for any reason, the County approval is void. This way the City and County can approve a comprehensive package rather than the applicant receiving one approval without the rest of the linked agreements being approved by the City of Bend. The City staff fully intends to bring the Issue before the City Council during August 2000. Final details are being resolved at this time. The City believes that the offer by the Consortium, with File No. IA -00-4 Page 3 modifications previously discussed, is a reasonable solution to the traffic problems on the west side of Bend. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent out written notice to surrounding property owners of the subject property. One letter has been received to date by the County Commissioner's Office. This letter expressed concern over the possibility of the destination resort development taking access through the Broken Top development. 6. LAND USE ACTION SIGN: The applicant's representative has submitted a notarized land use action sign affidavit stating that the two signs prepared by the County Planning Division were posted on July 12, 2000, one on Skyliners Road and the other on Century Drive. Ill. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Oregon Revised Statutes 94.504 through 94.528 governs proposed development agreements. 94.504 Development agreements; requirements, contents. (1) A city or county may enter Into a development agreement as provided In ORS 94.504 to 94.528 with any person having a legal or equitable Interest In real property for the development of that property. (2) A development agreement shall specify: (a) The duration of the agreement, which may not exceed four years for a development of fewer than seven lots or seven years for a development of seven or more lots; (b) The permitted uses of the property; (c) The density or Intensity of use; (c0 The maximum height and size of proposed structures; (e) Provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes; (t) A schedule of fees and charges; (g) A schedule and procedure for compliance review; (h) Responsibility for providing Infrastructure and services; (I) The effect on the agreement when changes In regional policy or federal or state law or rules render compliance with the agreement Impossible, unlawful or Inconsistent with such laws, rules or policy; Q) Remedies available to the parties upon a breach of the agreement; (k) The extent to which the agreement Is assignable; and (1) The effect on the applicability or Implementation of the agreement when a city annexes all or part of the property subject to a development agreement. (3) A development agreement shall set forth all future discretionary approvals required for the development specified In the agreement and shall specify the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for those discretionary approvals. (4) A development agreement shall also provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified period of time and that the endre project or any phase of the project be completed by a specified time. (5) A development agreement shall contain a provision that makes all city or county obligations to expend moneys under the development agreement contingent upon future appropriations as part of the local budget process. File No. IA -00-4 Page 4 The development agreement shall further provide that nothing In the agreement requires a city or county to appropriate such moneys. (6) A development agreement must state the assumptions underlying the agreement that relate to the ability of the city or county to serve the development. The development agreement must also specify the procedures to be followed when there Is a change in circumstances that affects compliance with the agreement. FINDING: The proposed draft development agreement is to be reviewed by Deschutes County Legal Counsel for meeting all of the above standards. Based on County Planning Division staff review of the draft agreement, it appears that all of the above components have been included within the agreement. Whether they are adequately written to the satisfaction of County Legal Counsel will be determined. 94.508 Approval by governing body; findings; adoption. (1) A development agreement shall not be approved by the governing body of a city or county unless the governing body flnds that the agreement Is consistent with local regulations then In place for the city or county. (2) The governing body of a city or county shall approve a development agreement or amend a development agreement by adoption of an ordinance declaring approval or setting forth the amendments to the agreement. Notwithstanding ORS 197.015(10)(b), the approval or amendment of a development agreement Is a land use decision under ORS Chapter 197. FINDING: The County has no specific requirements for a development agreement in the Deschutes County Code. The approval of any proposed project on the subject property is subject to review by the County through the land use process. Consistency with section 19.106.070(6) of Title 19 is to be addressed in the findings that the applicant is proposing to submit prior to the agreement hearing. If the proposed development agreement is approved by the County, it will be adopted by Ordinance. The proposed development agreement is being handled as a land use decision by the Planning Division, including notice to surrounding property owners, posted notice on the two main roads adjacent to the property, notice in the Bend Bulletin, and a public hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 94.513 Procedures on consideration and approval. (1) A city or county may, by ordinance, establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon application by, or on behalf of, the owner of property on which development Is sought or another person having a legal or equitable Interest In that property. (3) Approval of a development agreement requires compliance with local regulations and the approval of the city or county governing body after notice and hearing. The notice of the hearing shall, In addition to any other requirements, state the time and place of the public hearing and contain a brief statement of the major terms of the proposed development agreemen4 Including a description of the area within the city or county that will be affected by the proposed development agreement. File No. IA -00-4 Page 5 FINDING: The County has not adopted an OrAnance which establishes mocedures and requirements for consideration of the development agreement. This application is being handled as a quasi-judicial land use decision, subject to notice and hearing requirements of Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Land Use Procedures Ordinance. The County has no specific local regulations in place for development agreements. As indicated in a foregoing finding, any proposed project on the subject property must be reviewed through the land use process. The notice sent out by the County on the proposed development agreement contains the time and place of the hearing, a brief statement of the major terms of the agreement, including a description of the area within the County that will be affected by the proposed agreement. 94.518 Application of local govemment law and policies to agreement Unless otherwise provided by the development agreement, the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances and other rules and policies of the Jurisdiction governing permitted uses of land, density and design applicable to the development of the property subject to a development agreement shall be the comprehensive plan and those ordinances, rules and policies of the jurisdiction In effect at the time of approval of the development agreement FINDING: if a land use application(s) is submitted for the subject property, the application will be reviewed against the existing comprehensive plan and zoning regulations in effect at the time of the approval of the development agreement. Staff does not anticipate any changes in the zoning regulations with respect to the applicant's UAR-10 zoned land, and consequently those standards under Title 19 will be used to review any proposed application. 94.522 Amendment of cancellation of agreement; enforceability. (1) A development agreement may be amended or canceled by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors In Interest The governing body of a city or county shall amend or cancel a development agreement by adoption of an ordinance declaring cancellation of the agreement or setting forth the amendments to the agreement (2) Und! a development agreement Is canceled under this section, the terms of the development agreement are enforceable by any party to the agreement FINDING: If any amendment or cancellation is proposed for the development agreement after recording, it will have to meet the above standards. 94.528 Recording. Not later than 10 days after the execution of a development agreement under ORS 94.504 to 94.528, the governing body of the city or county shall cause the development agreement to be presented for recording In the office of the county clerk of the county In which the property subject to the agreement Is situated. In addition to. other provisions required by ORS 94.504 to 94.528, the development agreement shall contain a legal description of the property subject to the agreement FINDING: If the development agreement is signed by the county, it must be recorded within 10 days of that date. The draft development agreement submitted by the applicant contains a legal description of the property that is subject to the agreement. File No. IA -00-4 Page 6 CONCLUSION: The Board will need to decide whether the proposed development agreement meets the standards under ORS 94.504 through 94.528, and whether the assurances from the City of Bend that the west side traffic issues have been adequately addressed through the Consortium's proposed solutions. This proposed development agreement and the $500,000 contribution, is purported to be one piece of the traffic issues solution, but a piece that according to the City, is critical to the entire west side traffic issues resolution. The Board, should they decide to approve the development agreement, will need to adopt an ordinance for the agreement, with the agreement being an attachment to the ordinance. it is staffs opinion that the proposed development agreement (ordinance) should be adopted either in conjunction with the City's formal written approval of the Consortium's overall plan, or after the City's approval. File No. IA -00-4 Page 7 Bend City Cd6cil June 21, 2000 Outline of Components of Westside Consortium Proposal Background The West Bend Traffic Consortium made a proposal to the City Council on January 19, 2000. As directed by Council, staff has reviewed the proposal and technical reports submitted by the consortium. The discussions between staff and the consortium have proceeded along the lines set forth in this outline and in the June 7, 2000; issue summary provided to the Council. The City Council has not taken any action that commits the City of Bend to the terns set forth in this outline or in any earlier presentation made to the Council. A public hearing is scheduled for the meeting of June 21, 2000 to hear public comment on the consortium's proposal. This outline provides the terms and conditions of the proposal set forth by the consortium, following discussions with staff. Nothing in this outline commits the City of Bend to any particular method for resolving the transportation issues on the west side of town. Generally, there are three components of the proposal to improve transportation facilities on the west side. The three components include: (1) a local improvement district (LID) covering all necessary traffic system streets and intersections; (2) development agreements to establish uses and impacts from the properties; and (3) a LID for the southern bridge. LID The first component is a LID covering all intersection improvements and street connections. As discussed below, a second LID addresses the construction of the southern bridge. As presented to the Council on June 7, 2000, the LID approach was recommended by staff to assure that all traffic system improvements are completed in a timely manner. The location/timing/sequence of the necessary system fixes has been established through traffic analyses (both Kittleson and in-house). The LID has the following provisions and conditions: 1. The LID would be initiated by a petition submitted to the City Council by the consortium members. The city would decide whether to adopt a resolution to form the LID. This is.the standard procedure on LID petitions. 2. The petitioners for this LID are: • Brooks Resources • Broken Top • Skyliner Summit • Century Park LLC OUTLINE OF CONSORTIUM PROPOSAL PACE • River Bend • COCC • West Bend Prop. Co. • Shevlin Heights • West Side Meadows By the terms of the LID, each petitioner is responsible for one or more traffic system improvements. The LID petition lists the improvements to be made, the responsible property owner, and the schedule for improvements. The following improvements are included: • A roundabout at 9th and Newport; • A roundabout at 14th and Newport; • A roundabout at Newport and College Way; • A roundabout at Shevlin Park Road and Mt. Washington; • A roundabout at Mt. Washington and Skyliners Road; • A roundabout at Mt. Washington and Century Drive; • A roundabout at 14th and Galveston; • A roundabout at 14th and Simpson; • Completion of Mt. Washington Dr. from Skyliners Rd. to Troon Ave.; • Completion of Mt..Washington Drive from Century Drive to the Southern River Crossing; and • Completion of Skyliner Road from Lindsay Ct. to Mt. Washington (Skyliner Summit L.P.'s portion). 4. The schedule of improvements ensures that the westside transportation system will function acceptably during all phases of development. S. The LID assigns the responsibility for construction of specific improvements to one or more particular property owners, but on a global basis ensures that the entire system is fixed as necessary. 6. At the time set for construction of each traffic system improvement, the responsible property owner has the option of building the improvement (to an approved design) with their own funds or using the LID financing. If constructed outside of the LID, the responsible property is released from the LID. If LID financing is used, then the responsible property would be assessed the construction costs for the improvement as in other LIDs. The assessment would become a lien to be paid by the property owner in cash or through installments, if it is financed with Bancroft bond;. 7. If a property owner that is responsible for a particular improvement is not ready to develop, the city would pay the installment payments on the bonds until the property was ready to develop or for 7 years (the term of the development agreements). The city will be entitled to retain collected SDCs generated by development of the property to cover its payment of interim installments. If the OUTLINE OF CONSORTIUM PROPOSAL PAGE 2 city makes interim payments and the property owner does not take over bond payments, the city would have the right to foreclose on the assessment lien. 8. The LID approach is consistent with the TSP recommendations made by BTAC and supplies all necessary transportation system improvements while allowing development to proceed in an orderly fashion. 9. The city is obligated to obtain right-of-way for all necessary intersections and road improvements. In many cases, right-of-way is being dedicated, but it is the city's obligation to ensure that right-of-way is available when needed II. Development Agreements By state law, the city is authorized to enter into development agreements to establish the development rights and obligations for a specific property. A development agreement is a type of land use decision. In this case, the development agreements are used to establish the level of development on tho properties so that the planned transportation system improvements work acceptably and, based on that density, confirm that no additional off-site traffic exactions are imposed against the properties in the future. The development agreements require that all other issues related to the land use approvals for a project (other than off-site transportation) are subject to future land use review. As a result, only off-site transportation mitigation is being finalized through the development agreements. The development agreements provide for the following: 1. Article I: Establish that the development agreements are effective following adoption and final approval of the land use applications for a particular property. The development agreement has a 7 year term. 2. Article II: This section describes the planned land uses on a property and the proposed or pending land use applications. 3. Article III: Provides that property owner obligations (other than those set forth in the LID petition) are contingent on final approval of the referenced land use approvals. 4. Articles IV, V, VI: Identifies the permitted uses, density, and maximum heights for the property. S. Article VII: Outlines the provisions for dedications of land for public purposes. 6. Article VIII: Requires that all usual fees be paid for future land use actions, except fees or costs related to off-site transportation impacts. OUTLINE OF CONSORTIUM PROPOSAL PAGE 3 7. Article IX: Sets up an annual compliance requirement requiring annual reports to the city. 8. Article X: Outlines the property owner's responsibility for providing infrastructure and services. This section provides that in exchange for the maximum density rights vested by the development agreement, the property owner agrees to make the required off-site street and transportation -related improvements. The city agrees that these required improvements satisfy the property owner's obligations and that no additional off-site traffic mitigation can be imposed. It also provides for SDC reimbursement. 9. Article XI and XII: Outline the assumptions and contingencies for the development agreement. In particular, the development agreements are contingent on final approval of the necessary land use requests, city acquisition of necessary right-of-way and construction of the necessary traffic facilities. 10. Article XIII: Binds successors and assigns. 11. Article XIV: Outlines the future land use requests necessary for the property and rogWres that the standard process be followed on all future land use requests except with regard to off-site transportation issues. III. LID for Southern Bridge Construction The third component of the consortium proposal is for the formation of a LID for the construction of the southern bridge. The terms and conditions of this LID are as follows: 1. The petitioners (property owners) for this LID are the following private and public entities: • Brooks Resources Corporation • West Bend Property Co. • Skyliner Summit LP • Western Communications, Inc. (the Bulletin) • Bend-LaPine Administrative School District 2. The LID petition allocates the costs of the construction of the bridge among the property owners to a cap of $2.8 million (this includes a S500,000 non - reimbursable contribution from Cascade Highlands, L.P. (CHLP)). OUTLINE OF CONSORTIUM PROPOSAL PAGE: 4 3. The petitioners agree that if the actual cost of constructing the bridge is less than $2.8 million, the city shall be entitled to keep the excess over the actual cost, provided that the city applies those excess funds to the cost of constructing the Reed Market Road extension to the bridge. If the actual costs of constructing the bridge is more than $2.8 million, the city shall bear the additional costs. 4. The city is responsible for obtaining right-of-way that needs to be purchased for the bridge and connections to the bridge. The city is also responsible for obtaining all permits (land use, environmental, etc.) for bridge construction. 5. The property owners' obligations under the petition are contingent on (a) the city obtaining all necessary permits and right-of-way; (b) ODOT and property owner agreement on roadway design and access issues west of river to intersection of Century Drive; (c) amendment of the City's street SDC policy to allow a shared citywide recovery area. 6. Subject to approval of a development agreement between Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership (CHLP), Deschutes County and the city, CHLP will make a non -reimbursable $500,000 contribution to the LID. 7. The consortium proposes that the City's Street SDC Policy be changed so that the City would provide for SDC support of the LID financing of the bridge from a citywide shared recovery area. Under'this proposal, the city would make payments from SDCs from the citywide shared recovery area toward the principal of the LID bonds equal to 10% of the annual collection of citywide shared recovery SDCs; not to exceed 20% of the original assessments plus any principal payments made by the petitioners in any given year. Petitioners would be responsible for all interest charges resulting from the assessments and for paying principal due on the bonds if funds from citywide SDC collections are inadequate to pay the principal. OUTLINE OF CONSORTIUM PROPOSAL PAGE 5 Statement in Support of Application I. Introduction Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership (CHLP) has made application to Deschutes County for a development agreement. A development agreement is a land use decision governed by the provisions of ORS 94.504 through 94.528. CHLP is a member of the West Bend Traffic Consortium ("Consortium"), a group of public -entity and private landowners on Bend's westside and along Bend's westside urban reserve area that submitted a proposal to the city of Bend to make transportation facility improvements on the western side of Bend. CHLP's property is located west of the Broken Top development and between Century Drive and Skyliner Road. The property is located outside the city limits of Bend and is under the land use planning jurisdiction of Deschutes County. As a result of its location in the urban reserve area, the issue in the Consortium's proposal that relates to CHLP is a matter for county review. This application summarizes the Consortium's proposal and outlines the specific provisions related to CHLP's proposed development agreement with Deschutes County. II. Background Pursuant to ORS 94.504, a county is authorized to enter into a development agreement for the development of property. A development agreement has a duration of seven years for a development of seven or more lots. By law, a development agreement must identify the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of uses, the maximum height of proposed structures, a schedule of compliance review and the responsibility for providing infrastructure'and services. Other specific provisions are also required by the statute. The development agreement proposed by CHLP (in similar fashion to the other Consortium members' development agreements with the city) specifies the extent to which CHLP may develop its property under existing zoning and subdivision regulation and establishes the off-site transportation improvements that will be required in connection with CHLP's development of the property under the Consortium proposal. The proposed uses on the CHLP property include residential uses and a destination resort. III. CHLP Property The CHLP property consists of approximately 1,300 acres as depicted on the attached map. It is essentially comprised of two main areas. The large parcel has a zoning designation of Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10). Since 1996, it also has been eligible for destination resort development when it was mapped with the Destination Resort Overlay Zone (DR) by the city and county. The other parcel in the southeast corner is zoned UAR-10. CHLP acquired this area from the Bend Park and Recreation District in 1999. As a part of periodic review of the Bend Area General Plan, this parcel is eligible for review for destination resort mapping. The city and county have identified the need in the periodic review process for the Bend Area General Plan to consider revisions to the destination resort mapping of land in the Urban Reserve Area that has been transferred from public to private ownership. This mapping update process has already been approved as a work task item for the periodic review process for the Bend Area General Plan and will be considered during the periodic review process. IV. Overview of Consortium Proposal There are three main components of the Consortium's proposal to improve transportation facilities on Bend's west side. The proposal, as modified through the city process, includes: 1) a local improvement district (LID) covering all necessary transportation improvements; 2) development agreements to establish maximum uses/densities and off-site transportation mitigation requirements; and 3) a LID for the financing of the southern bridge crossing across the Deschutes River. Transportation LID. The first component is a LID covering transportation system improvements. The petitioner for the LID are Brooks Resources, Broken Top LLP, Skyliner Summit LLP, Century Park LLC, River Bend LLP, COCC, West Bend Property Co., Shevlin Heights, and West Side Meadows. Under the terms of this LID, each petitioner is responsible for one or more transportation system improvement(s), plus other identified off-site improvement(s) (trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.). Several roundabouts and road linkages are proposed as a part of the LID. The location, timing, and sequence of the necessary system fixes have been established through transportation impact analyses. Overall, the schedule of improvements ensures that the westside transportation system will function acceptably during all phases of development as identified by the Consortium proposal. The LID assigns the responsibility for construction of specific improvements to one or more of the petitioners, but on a global basis ensures that the entire system in the traffic study area is improved as necessary. Development Agreements. The second component is the development agreement. In this case, the development agreement is used to establish the level and type of development on the properties, including CHLP, so that the planned transportation system improvements work acceptably and, based on that density, confirm that no additional off-site transportation exactions are imposed against the properties in the future. The only issue being addressed in the development agreements relate to the satisfaction of off-site transportation mitigation. All other issues related to the land use approvals for a project are subject to future land use review. Again, only off-site transportation mitigation is being finalized through the development agreements. The specific provisions of the CHLP development agreement are discussed below. Southern Bridge LID. The third component is a LID for the financing of the southern bridge crossing. For this LID, the petitioners are Bend-LaPine Administrative School District, the Bulletin, Skyliner Summit, West Bend Property Co., and Brooks Resources. The LID petition allocates the costs of the construction of the bridge among the petitioners to a cap of $2.8 million. This includes a $500,000 contribution from CHLP. The LID will provide that if the actual cost of constructing the bridge is less than $2.8 million, the city shall be entitled to keep the excess over the actual cost, provided that the city applies those excess funds to the cost of constructing the Reed Market extension to the bridge. If the actual costs of constructing the bridge is more than $2.8 million, the city shall bear the additional costs. In addition, the city is responsible for obtaining any remaining right-of-way for the bridge and the connections to the bridge. The city is also responsible for obtaining all permits (land use, environmental, etc.) for bridge construction. The LID will provide for reimbursement for its participants, except for CHLP who is making its contribution of $500,000 on a non - reimbursable basis since it cannot be a LID petitioner as its lands are outside the city limits. CHLP's participation in the Consortium proposal relates to its contribution of $500,000 to the southern bridge LID. As a member of the Consortium, CHLP has agreed to contribute $500,000 toward the southern bridge LID. Unlike other Consortium members in this LID that would receive reimbursement from System Development Charges (SDCs), this is a non -reimbursable contribution. The development agreement between CHLP and Deschutes County is intended to serve as the land use decision binding CHLP to the contribution and establishing the vesting of its land use rights on the property together with the confirmation that no additional off-site transportation mitigation will be required (except as noted in the development agreement) in connection with CHLP's development of the property consistent with its development plans (uses and densities) identified in the Consortium proposal. V. CHLP's Development Agreement Under the Consortium proposal, the project on the CHLP property includes the development of single-family dwellings consistent with the UAR- 10 zoning on a portion of the property and various dwelling units, hotels, a golf course and retail space as components of a destination resort. The specific project's development uses and densities have been incorporated in the Consortium proposal and analyzed in the overall transportation impact analysis that includes projections of year 2007 and 2020 buildout. Both of these projected development buildout scenarios have been analyzed and evaluated in the traffic impact analysis prepared by Kittleson and Associates as part of the Consortium proposal. As with other Consortium member projects, this development plan of CHLP is fully accommodated by the planned transportation improvements included in the LIDs and development agreements of the Consortium proposal. As a part of its development agreement, CHLP intends to commit to the construction of the new planned north -south collector that bisects its property as well as the extension of Metolius Drive to the new collector. Construction of the new collector will be completed as the property is developed. In addition, CHLP is committing to build numerous trails as depicted on the attached maps. The new collector and Metolius Drive will be constructed with sidewalks and -bike lanes. CHLP also recognizes that the collector's intersection on the south at Century Drive will be subject to future review by ODOT, the city, and Deschutes County. The northern intersection at Skyliner will need to have further review by the county. CHLP is not intending to address the specific requirements of those intersections within this proposed development agreement, and they will be subject to future land use review processes. The development agreement will provide a benchmark for development on the CHLP property and establish that for development up to that benchmark as analyzed in the. Consortium proposal and transportation impact analysis, no other additional off-site transportation mitigation will be required, except as provided for in the development agreement. By separate submittal, CHLP will provide a copy of the overall transportation impact analysis for the Consortium proposal. Attached as a part of this submittal is a copy of the Executive Summary prepared by Kittleson and Associates for the Consortium proposal. CHLP is committed to working with Deschutes County toward a development agreement in accordance with the Consortium proposal and the on going concurrent processes occurring with the Bend City Council. West Bend Traft Study Exp Summary Executive Summary The westside consortium (herein referred to as "the consortium") includes 12 diverse entities that have joined together for the purposes of funding transportation improvements on the west side of Bend. This consortium formed in response to the projected failure of the westside transportation system in the next five years. Several transportation impact studies have recently identified the need to address transportation needs along the Wh Street, Newport Avenue, and Century Drive corridors. These studies have evaluated the impacts of individual developments on intersection and roadway needs near the individual sites. The consortium recognized the need to evaluate the transportation system in a more comprehensive manner in order to identify near-term and long-term transportation capacity and connectivity improvement needs. This report summarizes the results of that analysis. The entities that are part of the consortium include: Brooks Resources Corporation; Broken Top Limited Partnership; Skyliners Summit Limited Partnership; Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership; West Bend Property Company LLC; Shevlin Heights Limited Partnership; Westside Meadows LLP; Century Park, LLC; River Bend Limited Partnership; the Bend Bulletin; Bend -La Pine School District; and Central Oregon Community College (COCC). The Bend -La Pine School District, COCC, and the Old Mill District (OMD) Retail Village have already obtained land use approvals from the City of Bend and are contributing to the consortium as part of previous approval conditions for the projects. The Bend Bulletin has also received land use approvals from the city. The remaining members of the consortium are proposing new projects for land .use approval. As part of the consortium proposal, the members will fund the construction of single -lane roundabouts at eight intersections on the west side of Bend as part of an overall development agreement for the site. The development agreement will be valid for a period of seven years. During the seven years, the consortium members can develop their individual properties to a level consistent with that documented in this report without triggering the need for any additional off-site transportation mitigation measures. For this reason, the analysis summarized in this report evaluates forecast year 2007 conditions. The report also includes an evaluation of forecast year 2020 conditions. This analysis was perfonmed to identify for the City of Bend what the ultimate improvement needs are at the study area intersections. The detailed assumptions, methodologies, and findings of the consortium traffic analysis are presented in later sections of this report. The report includes an analysis of traffic operations at nine existing intersections on the west side of Bend, a qualitative analysis of the adequacy of the existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle system in the study area, and recommendations for transportation improvements. The primary findings of the report are summarized below. • Under existing conditions, two of the study area intersections require mitigation measures to meet the City's criteria for acceptable operating standards. These are 14`h Street/Galveston A%-enue and 14`h Streev" ewport Avenue. A roundabout N currently under construction at the She% -lin Park N-101.1111, Washington Dri%-c intersection. • Underyear 2007 background c►►nditiolls (i.e.. with no de%-elopment kill [Ile subject properties), the intersections of 14'h Street •Smipson ('entury Drive/Mt. Washington DI.i\-e \\ III also require mitigation. ArKe•/.con A AtepCINeS Inc'. West Bew rank study EywVoi- • With build -out of the consortium and growth in background traffic, all of the study area intersections except 14`h Street -Century Drive/Colorado Avenue and Shevlin Park/Mount Washington Drive will require mitigation. The consortium is proposing to construct roundabouts at eight of these intersections (the - Shevlin Park/Mount Washington Drive roundabout is currently under construction). The installation of a traffic signal at these intersections would also allow the intersections to function acceptably in the future. The configurations required to meet City operational criteria for each of the intersections and the mitigated levels of service are shown in the table below. • Per the development agreements, the consortium will fund single lane roundabouts at seven of the study area intersections and a double -lane roundabout at the Century Drive/Mount Washington Drive intersection (this , intersection will be originally constructed as a single -lane roundabout, with accominodations to expand to a double - lane when needed). Four additional intersections may need to be upgraded to a double lane roundabout within seven years if growth occurs as forecast. Per the development agreements, the city will upgrade these intersections to double -lane roundabouts at the time the intersection improvement is needed. In addition, the city will construct a single lane roundabout at the Mount Washington Drive/Simpson Avenue intersection when the improvement is warranted. With the roadway and intersection improvements identified in this report in-place, no additional vehicular improvements. will be necessary to accommodate the seven year buildout of the consortium and to meet the city's operational criteria. Adequate public facilities will be available for vehicular travel. These facilities will be consistent with the long-range transportation plan for the city, as outlined in the Bend Urban Area Transportation System Plan. Several transportation system improvements are proposed by the consortium that will serve connectivity needs on the westside for cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles. These include 17.9 miles of sidewalks and 14.8 miles of bicycle lanes along roadways and 14.0 miles of trails. These improvements, in combination with improvements made by the City in existing developed areas, will provide pedestrians and cyclists with a comprehensive network on the west side of Bend. With the proposed improvements in place, all of the collector and arterial roadways within the study area will have sidewalks on at least one side of the roadway and bicycle lanes and/or a mixed use trail suitable for two-way pedestrian and bicyclist travel. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities will mitigate the following system deficiencies between pedestrian generators on the westside: Cascade Middle School and neighborhoods to the north along Mt. Washington Drive or to the south along Century Drive; neighborhoods to the west of 14`h and the Rosie Barets Community Center. commercial areas, and parks along and to the east of 14`h; neighborhoods to the south of Mt. Washington Drive along Century Drive and commercial. school, and recreational destinations within the city limits. the existing westside neighborhoods and High Lakes Elementary and Summit High School; and the Westside Church and neighborhoods to the west. • It is estimated that a traffic signal or roundabout will need it, be installed at each of the study area intersection. %%ithin the next three years. Gi%rn the aggressive buildtnit Kittelson A AssOxkites. Inc. - - - West Bend Traflk Study &eC we Summary scenarios included in the consortium proposal, the improvement schedule identified in this report is likely accelerated. For this reason, it is recommended that the city begin right-of-way acquisition and preliminary design and engineering during the year identified in the report. The city should also establish a comprehensive monitoring program of intersection operations to determinewhen a particular improvement is needed. This program should be based on the operational performance of the intersections. Additional details of the study methodology, findings, and recommendations are provided within the full report. Kittelwn & ASSOCOteS, lnC. DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL BRUCE W. WHITE �� Deputy Legal Counsel TO: Board of County Commissioners S Ext. 6593 July 20, 2000 RE: Cascade Highlands Development Agreement File No. Your agenda for next week includes a public hearing on the Cascade Highlands Development Agreement. A draft of that agreement has been submitted by Cascade Highlands. Following discussions with staff and in consultation between the developer and the City of Bend, the agreement is still being refined. We expect to have a revised draft for you on Friday. In the meantime, I have attached a basic explanation of what a development agreement does and what the general concept is behind the Cascade Highlands development agreement is. From talking with Nancy Craven, there is no expectation that we will be in a position to take action on the development agreement at next Wednesday's meeting. There may still be the need for further tweaking and we may wish to leave the record open. It appears that the City is not expecting to take action on the development agreements before them until August. Staff would recommend that the City take the lead in adopting the development agreements and that we follow their lead. Because the Cascade Highlands development agreement is aimed at resolving traffic issues and traffic improvements within the City of Bend only, we have asked that City staff address you at the hearing. They have agreed to do so. Development Agreements Generally • A development agreement is a device that offers regulatory certainty to developers who may be required to make a substantial investment in infrastructure prior to proceeding with their development by allowing a developer to "lock in" (at a preliminary time period in which he expects to commit funds to preparatory infrastructure improvements) the current approval standards as the standards under which his prospective development will be evaluated during a future permitting proceeding. • Under a development agreement, a developer can thus proceed to commit funds to infrastructure with the confidence that the local jurisdiction cannot pull the rug out from under him by changing the approval criteria before he is ready to seek necessary lhnd use approvals. • A development agreement does not substitute for land use permit approval of a particular project. At most — upon a showing that relevant ordinance standards can be met -- it serves as an advance ruling that if certain assumptions that provide the basis of the development agreement are adhered to, certain agreed -to infrastructure improvements will be sufficient to warrant future approval of the proposed development as to the particulars covered in the development agreement. • The proposed development must still be shown through a subsequent land use permitting process to meet the applicable land use standards. In order to reap the benefits of the development agreement, the development must be shown in the subsequent permitting process to fall within the assumptions that provided the basis for the development agreement. Development agreements are allowed under Oregon law by ORS 94.580 (see attached). The applicant must show that the substance of the agreement complies with the existing land use standards of the comprehensive plan and applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. Development agreements are subject to a hearing, but unlike ordinary land use decisions can be approved only through adoption of an ordinance. • A development agreement is a "land use decision" that can be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. • If adopted without an emergency clause, an ordinance adopting a development agreement is potentially subject to referral to the people in an election. Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership Proposal • Cascade Highlands is part of the westside consortium that seeks to make improvements to westside intersections to allow westside development to proceed. . . 1 • Cascade Highlands owns 1300 acres of land to the west of the Broken Top development upon which they wish to develop a destination resort and a 52 -lot low- density subdivision. To provide a basis for the development agreement, Cascade Highlands has specified that its development plans will include no more than 367 single-family residences, 243 multi -family residences, 128 condominiums, 40,000 square feet of destination -resort related retail, an 18 -hole golf course, a 350 -room resort hotel and a 250 -room conference hotel facility. • Cascade Highlands' share of the westside consortium "fix" is to contribute $500,000 toward the southern bridge crossing over the Deschutes River at the Reed Market Road. Before they commit to making that contribution, Cascade Highlands wishes to receive assurance from the county that in light of that contribution: (1) the $500,000 contribution to the southern crossing will be sufficient to satisfy any and all off-site traffic improvement requirements within the City offend; and (2) their future destination resort proposal and their low-density subdivision will be evaluated under current county standards in the urban reserve area, which they believe they will be able to meet. • To safeguard their $500,000 investment, Cascade Highlands proposes that the county "vest" the existing approval destination resort and subdivision standards as the standards under which the developments will be measured. • The development agreement is supported by a Kittleson traffic study of the westside traffic system that shows that if all the new consortium -backed developments are built to their projected densities the traffic improvements proposed to be made by the consortium will be sufficient to handle the increased traffic associated with those developments. A copy of the study has been submitted to the County. • The development agreement does not resolve any issues with regard to traffic improvements that may be needed within the county — such as at the intersection of roads leading from the development to Century Drive and to Skyliner Road. Developer agrees that required improvements to those facilities and developer responsibility, if any, will be left to the permitting process. 94.504 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TRANSACTIONS 94.2&5 [Formerly 91.569; renumbered 100.535 in 19891 94.870 [Formerly 91.572; renumbered 100.540 in 19891 94.876 (Formerly 91.576; renumbered 100.545 in 19891 94.880 (Formerly 91.678. 1983 c.615 §6;1989 c.595 §23; renumbered 100.660 in 19891 94.886 [Formerly 91.581; renumbered 100.555 in 19891 94.896 [Formerly 91.684; 1989 x695 124; renumbered 100.600 in 19891 94800 [Formerly 91.587; 1989 x695 126; renumbered 100.605 in 19891 94806 [Repealed by 1971 x478 Ill. 94.806 [Formerly 91.591; 1989 x695 §26; renumbered 100.610 in 19891 94.810 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1] 94.812 [Formerly 91.593; 1989 0.595 027; renumbered 100.615 in 19891 94.815 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §11 94.818 [Formerly 91.696; 1989 0.595 §28; renumbered 100.620 in 1989) 94820 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1) 94= [1983 c615 18, renumbered 100.626 in 19891 94874 (Formerly 91.699; 1985 060 §l; repealed by 1987 0.469 6411 94.826 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1] 94830 (Amended by 1969 x591 §278; repealed by 1971 x478 §1) 129; 9MI [Forma�ered 100.635 91.602; ; 1987 0.459 120; 1989 0.695 94833 [1987 x459 122, renumbered 100.015 in 19891 94.835 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1) 94.836 [Formerly 91.606; repealed by 1987 0.459 0411 94840 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 Ill 94.842 (Formerly 91.608; 1987. x459 629; renumbered 100.645 in 19891 94846 [repealed by 1971 x478 ill 94848 Formerly 91.611; 1987 0.469 §30; renumbered 100.650 in 19891 94850 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §3] 94851 [1987 c.459 124; 1989 x695 §30; renumbered 100.655 in 1989] 94853 [1987 0.469 §26; renumbered 100.640 in 19891 94.864 11987 x469 128; renumbered 100.670 in 19891 94866 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1) 948,58 [1987 x459 126; renumbered 100.660 in 19891 94867 11987 0.459 127; renumbered 100.675 in 19891 94.858 [1987 x459 §28; renumbered 100.680 in 1989] 94859 [Formerly 91.614; 1987 0.459 631; renumbered 100.700 in 19891 94860 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1] 94866 [Repealed by 1971 e.478 §1) 94888 [Formerly.01.617, repealed by 1987 0.459 1411 94870 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 Ill 94872 Q bmwrly 91.621; repealed by 1987 e.459 6411 94876 (Repealed by 1971 x478 §3] 94878 (Formerly 91.623, repealed by 1987 x459 1411 94880 [Repealed by 1971 x478 Ill 112; 1989 c=13:4 srenumbervd100.705 in -19891 x171 94886 Otepealed by 1971 x478 Ill 94M (Repealed by 1971 x478 §1) 94.881 (Formerly 91.629; 1987 x459 635; renumbered 100.710 in 19891 94.896 [Repealed by 1971 c.478 §11 94A90 (Formerly 91.631; renumbered 100.720 in 19891 94406 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1] 94406 [Formerly 91.634; renumbered 100.725 in 1989] 94+410 [Repealed by 1971 e.478 §3] 94Al2 (Formerly 91.637; 1989 0.695 147; renumbered 100.780 in 1889] 94,416 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1] 94A18 [1981 x647 §24; renumbered 100.785 in 19891 94.420 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1] 94.424 (Formerly 91.641; 1989 0.695 132; renumbered 100.740 in 19891 94.425 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1] 94430 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1] 94.431 [Formerly 91.646; 1987 x459 136; renumbered 100.746 in 19891 94436 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1] 94437 [Formerly 91.649; renumbered 100.760 in 19891 94A40 [Repealed by 1971 x478 §1] 94446 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 §1] 94448 [Formerly 91.652; renumbered 100.770 in 19891 94x464 formerly 91.656; renumbered 100.775 in 1989] 94A00 (Formerly 91.658; renumbered 100.780 in 19891 94A65 (Formerly 91.661; 1989 x695 §33; renumbered 100.785 in 1989] 94.470 [Formerly 91.664; 1983 0.696 §7b; 1989 0.706 §7; renumbered 100.900 in 19891 94A76 [Formerly 91.667; renumbered 100.905 in 1989] 94480 (Formerly 91.671; renumbered 100.910 in 1989) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 94.504 Development agreements; re- quirements; contents. (1) A city or county may enter into a development agreement as. provided in ORS 94.504 to 94.528 with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of that property. ifY (2) A development agreement shall spec - (a) The duration of the agreement, which may n ears fo nt o ewer than seven o or Seven years or a development of seven or more lots; (b) The permitted uses of the property; (c) The density or intensity of use; (d) The maximum height and size of pro- posed structures; (e) Provisions for reservation or dedi- cation of land for public purposes; (f) A schedule of fees and charges; (g) A schedule and procedure for compli- ance review; (h) Responsibility for providing infra- structure and services; (i) The effect on the agreement when changes in regional policy or federal or state Title 10 Page 122 (1999 Edition) REAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 94.528 law or rules render compliance with the agreement impossible, unlawful or inconsist- ent with such laws, rules or policy; 0) Remedies available to the parties upon a breach of the agreement; (k) The extent to which the agreement is assignable; and (L) The effect on the awlicability or im- 1 m n e a--+ wen 94.610 [Repealed by 1971 c.478 11) 94.613 Procedures on consideration and approval. (1) A city or county may, by ordinance, establish procedures and- require- ments for the consideration of development agreements upon application by, or on behalf of, the owner of property on which develop- ment is sought or another person having a legal or equitable interest in that property. annexes al1 or p o e grope su iect to (2) Approval of a development agreement a �i agreemen . reqquires compliance with local regulations 3 eve opment agreement shall set forth future discretionary ap rovals re- and the approval a cit - ernin bod after no ce an he quired or the development speed in the agreement and shall specify the conditions, e o e hearingshall. in n other r men d a terms, restrictions and requirements for those discretionary approvals. and e statement of the major terms of the propose (4) A development agreement shall also development agreement, including a de - scription of the area within the city or provide that construction shall be com- county that will be affected by the proposed menced within a specified period of timq and development agreement. [1993 x780 631 that the entir ro'ephase o the, h Nota See note under 94.604. roec Com a e, (5) A development agreement shall con- 94516 atepealed by, 1971 x478 Ill tain a provision that makes all city or county 94.518 Application of local government law obligations to expend moneys under the de- and policies to agreement. Unless velopment agreement contm rent upon future otherwise provided by the development agreement, the appropriations as part of the local budget process. The development agreement shall comprehensive plan, zoning o�an� and other rules and policies of the'urisdiction further provide that nothing in the agree- governing permitted uses of ment requires a city or county to appropriate any such moneys. lan2 density and design applicable to the development of the property subject to a de - (6) A development agreement moat state the velopment agreement shallbe the compre- hensive plan and those ordinances rules and assumptions underlying the agreement that relate to the ability of the city or policies of the urisdictio tat the county county to . serve the development. The devel- time of a roe of the development agree- agreement must also specify the pro- men . [1993 a cedures to be followed when there is a Note: See note under 94.604. change in circumstances that affects compli- 94.620 [Repealed by 1971 0.478 Ill ance with the agreement. [1993 c.780 Ill Note: 94.604 to 94.628 were emoted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 94 or aq� series therWn legis- lative action. See Preface to Oregon Rev[eed tatutes for further explanation. 94.606 [Repealed by 1971 x478 Ill 94.508 Approval by governing findings; adoption. (1) A development agreement shall not be approved by the gov- erning, body of a city or county unless the governing bo finds that the agreement Innal , 2 ace fort a •city or county. (2) The governing body of a city or county shall approve a development agree- ment or amend' adevelopment agreement by adoption of an ordinance declaring approval or setting forth the amendment- to the agreement. Notwithstanding ORS 197.015 (10M, the approval or amendment of a de- velopment. agreement is a land. use decision under ORB, chapter 197. (im &780121 Note: See note under 94.604. Title 10 94.522 Amendment or cancellation of agreement; enforceability. (1) A develop- ment agreement may be amended or canceled by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest. The governing body of a city or county shall amend or cancel a development agreement by adoption of an ordinance declaring can- cellation of the agreement or setting forth the amendments to the agreement. (2) Until a development agreement is canceled under this section, the terms of the development agreement are enforceable by any party to the agreement. [1995 0.780 161 Note: See note under 94.604. 94.626 Otepealed' by 1971 x478 §ll 94.628 Recording. Not later than 10 days after the execution of a development agree- ment under OPS. 94.504 to 94.528 the gov- erniag body of the city or county shah cause the development agreement to be presented for recording in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the property • subject Page 123 (1999 Edition) t 94MI PROPhATY RIGHTS AND TRANSACTIONS to the agreement is situated. In addition to other provisions required by ORS 94.504 to 94.528, the development agreement shall con- tain a legal description of the property sub- ject to the agreement. [1993 &78o lel Notes See note under 94.504. 94.590 [Repealed by 1971 &478 Ill TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDITS 94.531 Severable development interest in real property transferable develop- ment' credit. (1) property; governing body of a city or county is authorized to recognize a severable development interest in real prop- erty. The governing body of the city or county may establish a system for thet chase - and sale of development interests.V6 interest transferred shall be known as a transferable development credit. A transferable development credit shall include the ability to establish in a location in the city or county a specified amount of residen- tial or nonresidential development that is different from development types or exceeds development limitations provided in the ap- plicable land use regulations for the location. All development authorized or approved us- ing .transferable development credits shall comply. with the land use planning. goals adopted under ORS 197.225 and the acknowl- edged comprehensive plan. (2) The ability to develop land from which credits are transferred shall be re- duoed by the amount of the development credits transferred, and development on the land to which credits are transferred may be increased in accordance with a transfer sys- tem formally adopted by the governing body of the city or county. (3) The holder of a recorded mortgage encumbering land from which credits are transferred shall be given prior written no- tice of the proposed conveyance by the re- cord owner of the property and must consent to the conveyance before any development credits may be transferred from the property. (4) A city or county with a transferable development credit system shall maintain a registry of all lots or parcels from which credits have been transferred, the lots or Panels to which credits have been trans- ferred and the allowable. development level for each lot or parcel following transfer. (5) A city or county, or an elected offi- cial, appointed official, empployee - or agent of a city or county, shall not be found, liable for damages resulting from any .error made in: (a) Allowing the use of a transferable de- velopment credit that . complies, with an adopted transferable development credit sys- tem and the acknowledged comprehensive plan; or (b) Maintaining the registry required un- der subsection (4) of this section. (1999 c.573 oil Notes 94.531 was enacted into law by the Legisla- tive Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 94 or any series therein by legislative ac- tion. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. 9iM [Repealed by 1971 &478 Ill PLANNED COMMUNITIES (General Provisions) 94.550 Definitions for ORS 94.550 to 94.783. As used in ORS 94.550 to 94.783: (1) "Assessment" means any charge im- posed or levied by a homeowners association on or against an owner or lot pursuant to the provisions of the declaration or the by- laws of the planned community or provisions of ORS 94.560 to 94.783. (2) 'Blanket encumbrance" means a trust deed .or mortgage or any other lien or en- cumbrance, mechanics' lien or otherwise, se- curing or evidencing the payment of money and affecting more than one lot In a planned community, or an agreement affecting more than one lot by which the developer holds such planned community under an option, contract to sell or trust agreement. (3) "Common expenses" means expendi- tures made by or financial liabilities incurred by the homeowners association and includes any allocations to the reserve account under ORS 94.595. (4) "Common property" means any real property or interest In real property within a planned community which is owned or leased by the homeowners . association or owned as tenants in common -by the lot owners, or designated in the declaration for transfer to the association. "Common prop- erty" does not include any lot designated on the plat or in the declaration of a planned community for ownership by a person other than the homeowners association. (5) "Condominium" means property sub- mitted to the provisions of ORS chapter 100. (6) "Declarant" means any person who creates a planned community under ORS 94.550 to 94.785. (7) 'Declarant control" means any spe- cial declarant right relating to administra- tive control of a.. homeowners association, including but not limited to: (a) The right of the declarant or person designated by the declarant to appoint or re- move an officer ora member of the board of directors; Title 10 Page 124 (1999 Edition) W DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL BRUCE W. WHITE ta w Deputy Legal Counsel REM. 6593 TO: Board of County Commissioners July 26, 2000 RE: Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership Development Agreement File No. I have reviewed the revised (July 21, 2000) draft Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership Development Agreement and my comments are as set forth below. Due to the shortness of the review time we have had for the various drafts of this agreement, CHLP and the City will not have received some of these comments by the time of the hearing. 1. The Development Agreement has been revised to address the concerns I had about the effective date of the agreement being delayed until after approval of the Conceptual Master Plan for the proposed destination resort has been secured. However, as to the term of the agreement, it does not resolve all of my concerns (see point 4 below). 2. The City of Bend has been added as a party to this agreement, which will help assure as part of the approval process for the proposed Agreement that coordination and liability issues between City and County are adequately covered. 3. The July 21, 2000 revisions do not include a revision that staff and the developer's attorney had agreed to that defines the off-site improvements "within the city" as being those within the city boundaries as they are constituted as of the effective date of the Agreement. As we discussed at our Monday work session in response to Commissioner DeWolf's concern, this definition needs to be included as part of the development agreement so that it is clear that any transportation facilities outside the current city boundaries may be required to be addressed as part of the approval process for the proposed destination resort and the large -lot subdivision. This can be done by perhaps adding a "Definition" subparagraph to Article I, which would read as follows: "The phrases 'within the city' or City transportation facilities' as they relate to the infrastructure improvements that are the subject of this agreement refers to those traffic facilities that lie within the boundary of the City of Bend as it exists on the effective date of this agreement." 4. Pursuant to ORS 94.504(2)(a), the County cannot be asked to vest the development standards for a period of time longer than seven years. Article 1.3 would allow the time period during which the standards would be vested to be seven years plus the time period during which the approval of the destination resort is pending. Article 1.3 should be revised to state that the term of the agreement shall be seven years following the effective date of the agreement. There should be no difference between the Standards Vesting Date and the Effective Date. To address concerns about this agreement being a part of an package of development agreements dealing with all of the Westside traffic issues, I would suggest making the effective date the date on which the last of the ordinances agreements concerning the westside consortium development agreements becomes effective. 5. The last sentence of Article II, which defines the scope of the project, allows for a change in the mix of the development to respond to change in market conditions, so long as the change does not increase the number of estimated vehicle trips. As I have discussed with the developer's attorneys previously, this needs to be amended to account not just for the total number of vehicle trips but for possible changes in the distribution of those trips at that might cause additional traffic at peak hours. 6. The first sentence of Article III "Uses" needs to be amended to say that it is subject to the County's — not the City's -- land use ordinances under Title 19 of the County Code. 7. The agreement needs to specify more precisely what standards CHLP desires to vest so that there is no uncertainty in the future about what standards have been vested by the agreement. For example, Article IV leaves entirely open to future interpretation what standards are required to vest in order to assure density and intensity of use. (This is exemplified by the lack of any specific mention made of current open space limitations being frozen in place, yet it is the open space limitations — in combination with property size and. topography limitations -- that likely would drive any determination on whether density goals are able to be met.) So that there is no disagreement in the future, this should be pinned down specifically. This issue may be answered by the operation of Paragraph 13.5 that would have all the applicable standards vest. If that is the case, this makes it all the more important that the agreement be limited to a seven-year period. 8. A new sentence should be added to Article IV as follows: "Notwithstanding the maximum densities expressed in the description of the Proposed Development in Article II, actual densities and intensity of use cannot be guaranteed by this Agreement and can only be determined and established during the approval process pursuant to the approval standards vested herein." This simply recognizes that until CHLP comes in with an application actual numbers cannot be determined. Staff has not and will not do any required density and/or open space percentage calculations until the actual approval stage. 9. The language in Article V should be changed to read as follows: "The maximum height and size of proposed structures of the Proposed Development shall be subject to any applicable deed restrictions and the applicable standards contained in the DCC that exist as of the effective date, notwithstanding the content of any subsequently adopted zoning or development ordinance, whichever is the more restrictive." CHLP has proposed revised language that arose out of a conversation with staff, but upon further review, staff realizes that the proposed language goes beyond what is allowed by the development agreement statute. Height of buildings in the proposed destination resort would continue to be measured by the criteria set forth at 19.106.060(F)(1). 10. To clarify that the County is not locked in to the fee structure that exists as of the time "any" application comes in, I would propose changing the word "any" to "each." 11. Consistent with my comments set forth in Paragraph 7 above, I am concerned about any reference to vesting of maximum densities, such as in Line 1 of Paragraph 9. 1, or references such as in Paragraph 9.2 to the "Ploposed bevelopment" as being vested. It is my understanding that except for the approval of what will constitute off-site traffic ;'improvements inside the City of Bend, we are vesting the approval standards only -- and that the specifics of what is able to be approved under those vested standards must await the actual approval process. 12. Article 9.2 states that CHLP's contribution to the proposed transportation improvements are deemed to satisfy CHLP's obligations toward contributing to off-site transportation facilities within the City. We need to hear from the City, as the affected road authority, that they are OK with this. 13. The letter of credit language in Article 9.3 needs additional specificity. At a minimum it should state that it is an irrevocable standby letter of credit satisfactory in its terms to the City and County. To satisfy matters relating to state budget law, the County would ask that the following language be added in at the end of the paragraph: "County may assign its right to payment hereunder to the City and in so doing discharge any obligation it may have to the City hereunder." This will avoid the County having to do a supplemental budget for an item that will be nothing but a pass-through to the City. 14. The language in Article 13.1 needs to be changed. As currently stated, that provision can be read to indicate that we will give up our independent regulatory role and actively seek to gain approval of the necessary permits. That is not an accurate characterization of our role. Perhaps a statement such as the following would be more appropriate: "The parties agree that future regulatory approvals identified herein sought within the term of this agreement will be subject to the provisions of this agreement." 15. Paragraph 13.5 should be amended A sentence should be added to the end of Section 13.4 as follows: "The current or any future applicable approval standard relating to off-site transportation or pedestrian or bicycle paths, trails or routes shall be fully applicable to the extent those facilities are located outside of the City of Bend." 16. Exhibit C needs to be open-ended and not limit what the County can legally require as off- site improvements. This can be accomplished by making the following changes: in the introductory paragraph by substituting the word "additional" for the words "the following" and by adding the phrase "including but not limited to;" and by adding the descriptions that the Road Department wants to include in the list of off-site improvements. 17. The County needs an indemnity provision from the City to indemnify the County in the event that events that occur within the City's control (such as things happening with the remainder of the Westside projects that imperils this package deal) cause an action to be brought for breach or for damages. • .1/00 FRI 18:99 FAX 1 541 817 8824 BALL JANIK LLP Q1018 t0'=� .Draft �k Date, July 21, 2000 � ��� \t- iS l% EXHIBIT C 1<0000�v4Other Improvements Subject to the terms provided herein, in the event that CHLP proceeds with its Destination Resort, the County may condition approval of the related Applications upon CHL.P's agreornent to construct the following transportation -related improvements: (a) Construction of a North/South Collector (the "Now CoHectoe j through the Property, which New Collector would intersection with Century Drive and Skyliners; (b) Construction of intersection improvements at the intersection of the New Collector and Century Drive; (c) Construction of intersection improvements at the intersection of the New Collector and Skyliners; and (d) Extension of Metolius from its existing western terminus to the New Collector. Sfi�oA-P•�s &�+� � � rs','rt� 1��'M � �t� �a1 �P�>�r `'i G) 6-Su{LIT" cxg> M post4e Fax Note 7671 1'$ t=M rS • pEVELOPMBNT AORUMENM&P Exhibit "A" and the effects of loss of resource land, and; 4. The natural amenities of the site considered together with the identified developed recreation facilities to be provided with the resort will constitute a primary attraction to visitors, based on the economic feasibility analysis. D. The destination resort incorporates design components, setbacks, and buffers to protect designated wildlife areas. E. Important natural features, including but not limited to, significant wetlands, riparian habitat and landscape management corridors will be maintained. Riparian vegetation within 100 feet 'of streams, rivers and significant wetlands will be maintained., Alterations to important natural features, including placement of structures, is allowed so long as the overall values of the feature are maintained. F. The development will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding H. .lands devoted to farm or forest use. G.. Destination,. resort..:., developments . that significantly affect a 6nsportation facility shall assure- that the development is consistent with the identified function, ..,capacity4uA4eve1of servioe•of the facility. This shall twaecoinplished by either. 1. Limiting the development to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the traaspottation facility; 2. Providing transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed development consistent with OAR Chapter 660, Division 12; or 3. Altering land use densities, design requirements or using other methods to reduce demand for automobile travel and to meet travel needs through other modes. A destination resort significantly affects a transportation facility if it would result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of a facility or would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the relevant transportation system plan. a. Where the option_ .of __providing transportation facilities is -chosen, the applicant shall be required to improve impacted roads to the full standards . of the affected authority as a condition -of, approval. Timing of such improvements shall be based upon the timing of the impacts created by the development as determined by the traffic study or the recommendations of the affected road authority. b. Access within the project shall be adequate to serve the project in a safe and efficient manner for each phase of the project. The development will not create the potential for natural hazards identified in the Bend Urban Area General Plan. No structure will be located on slopes exceeding 25 percent. A wildfire management plan will be implemented to ensure that wildfire hazards are minimized to the greatest extent practical and allow for safe evacuation. I. Adequate public safety protection will be available through existing fire districts or wiH be provided on-site according to the specification of the state fire marshal. If the resort is located outside of an existing fire district, the developer will provide for staffed structural fire protection services or contract with or annex to the existing district. Adequate public facilities to PAGE 9 OF 13 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 99-001 (1/13/99) 17.16.080. Tentative plan as a master plan. A. As an alternative to the filing of a master plan for phased development, the applicant may file a tentative plan for the entire development. The plan must comply with the provisions of this title for tentative plans. B. If the applicant proposed to phase development, he shall provide sufficient information regarding the overall development plan and phasing sequence when submitting the tentative plan. C. If the tentative plan Is approved with phasing, the final plat for each phase shall be filed In accordance with sections 17.24.020 through 17.24.110 of this title. (Ord. 81.043 § 1, Exhibit A. § 3.045, 1981) 17.16.090. Tentative plan approval. A. The Hearings Body shall Wow the application and any comments submitted by other appropriate county, state, or federal agencies and shall render a decision In accordance with section 17.16.100 of this title, setting forth findings supporting its decision. B. Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the plat of the proposed subdivision for purposes of recording; however, approval of such tentative pian shalt be binding upon the county for the purposes of preparation and review of the final plat Upon review of the final plat, the county may require compliance with the terns of its tentative plan approval of the proposed subdivision and the terns of this title. (Ord. 90-003 11. Exhibit A. 1990; Ord. 81-043 § 1, Exhibit A, § 3.055(1).1981) 17.16.100. Required findings for approvab A tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that the subdivision as proposed or modified will most the requirements of this title and Titles 18 through 21 of this code, and Is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall Include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The subdivision contributesto orderly development and land use patterns in the area, and provides for the preservation of natural features and resources such as streams, lakes, natural vegetation, special terrain features, agricultural and forest lands and other natural resources. - B. The 'subdivision will not create excessive'demand on public facilities and services, nd utilities required to serve the development. C. The tentative plan for the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes 92.090. D. For subdivision or portions thereof proposed within a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMiA) zone under Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the subdivision creates lots on which nolse or dust sensitive uses can be sited consistent with the requirements of chapter 18.66 of Title 18, as amended, as demonstrated by the site plan and aoc:ompanying information required under section 17.16.030 of this chapter. E. The subdivision name has been approved by the County Surveyor. (Ord. 93-012 § 19, 1993; Ord. 90-003 11. Exhibit A. 1990; Ord. 81-043 § 1, Exhibit A, § 3.0600 .1981) 17.16.105. Access to subdivisions. No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads constructed to county standards and by roads accepted for maintenance responsibility by a unit of local or state government This standard is met if the subdivision would have direct access to an improved collector or arterial, or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to such a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant county standards and has been 17.20 Draft Date: July 21, 2000 4. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is dated as of the _ day of 2000, by and between CASCADE HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Oregon limited partnership ("CHLP") ate: DESCHUTES COUNTY, a an Oregon municipal corporation afthe State agOmSen the "County") and THE CITY OF BEND, an Oregon municipal corporation (the "City"). Each of CHLF &PAI the County and the City is hereinatter reberred to as a and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS 94.504 authorizes counties to enter into development agreements with private parties who own or otherwise have a legal interest in property in connection with the development of that property. Such development agreements may be effective for up to seven (7) years and may establish each of the parties' rights and obligations in connection with certain aspects of the proposed development; WHEREAS, CHLP is the owner of approximately 1320 acres of land (the "Property") located in the County west of the City of Bend (the "City"), which Property is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Property is in the area just outside the City's urban growth boundary which is commonly known as the Urban Reserve Area ("URA"). The land in the URA is within the County,-bvt and is administered jeintlby tho G45 and the County pursuant to a Joint Management AgreemenT("JMA"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the JMA, the County has responsibility to process land use applications with City comment; WHEREAS, in conjunction with this Agreement, CHLP has submitted or intends to submit several land use applications (collectively, the "Applications") requesting approval of residential development, including a Destination Resort, on the Property; WHEREAS, CHLP is a member of a consortium (the "Consortium") of landowners who, except for CHLP, own property on the wost sido (tho 1=9st Sido!4 area of the City, west of the Deschutes River commonly !mown as the "West Side." The Con -Mum members are =, Brooks esources Corporation, West bendrop mpany, LLC, Broken Top Limited Partnership, Skyliner Summit Limited Partnership, Bend-LaPine Administrative School District No. 1, Century Park LLC, Shevlin Heights L.P., West Side Meadows, LLC, Central Oregon Community College, River Bend Limited Partnership, and Western Communications, Inc., dba The Bulletin. The Consortium has made a proposal to the City which includes the creation of two Local Improvement Districts ("LIDs') to provide transportation facilities improvements to resolve both existing transportation problems and to accommodate the traffic impact of the Consortium members' proposed development projects on the West Side. Accordingly, CHLP and each of the other Consortium members has agreed to enter into development agreements that collectively address the shortfall of transportation improvements and together with the City's own capital improvements plans provides a comprehensive solution to the transportation inadequacies on the West Side; CAWin&WS\TEMPW2n794 vREDAm Draft Date: July 21, 2000 WHEREAS, the City and the Consortium have together identified eleven (11) distinct transportation infrastructure improvements on the West Side which are referenced on attached Exhibit B (each, a "Facilities Improvement" and collectively, the "Facilities Improvements") that would be adequate to alleviate the problems associated with the existing infrastructure and necessary to permit development of all of the proposed development projects contemplated by the Consortium members consistent with the City's land use regu a ions; WHEREAS, nine (9) of the Consortium members have signed a Petition to Form Local Improvement District (the "Intersection Petition"), which Intersection Petition, among other things, allocates responsibility for constructing ten of the Facilities Improvements; WHEREAS, five of the Consortium members, Brooks Resources Corporation, West Bend Property Company, LLC, Skyliner Summit Limited Partnership, Western Communications, Inc., dba The Bulletin and Bend-LaPine Administrative School District No. 1 have agreed to sign a Petition to Form Local Improvement District (the "Bridge Petition"), which Bridge Petition, among other things, allocates responsibility for the cost of constructing a bridge over the Deschutes River where the extension of Reed Market Road will meet the River (the "Southern Bridge"); WHEREAS, the Intersection Petition provides a schedule for completion of the Facilities Improvements by the responsible Consortium member(s) and provides that the completion of its assigned Facilities Improvements shall discharge a particular Consortium member from responsibility for off-site transportation impact mitigation in connection with that Consortium member's proposed development; WHEREAS, while CHLP is not a party to either the Intersection Petition or the Bridge Petition, CHLP has agreed, as part of the West Side system transportation fix agreed to by the City and the Consortium members and memorialized in the Bridge Petition and the development agreements between the City and individual Consortium members, to contribute Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) toward the cost of constructing the Southern Bridge C.rccsig; WHEREAS, the Consortium proposal provides that if CHLP agrees to make such contribution, then CHLP's proposed development project shall be subject to no additional off- site transportation exactions—w—iUMMe City except as provided herein, and CHLP has agreed to same, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Agreement to definitively and exclusively establish the off-site transportation improvements and dedications as well as the off-site pedestrian and bicycle trail dedications and improvements that will be required in the City in connection with CHLP's proposed development. CHLP and its assigns voluntarily agree to make such improvements and dedications in order to gain the certainty and benefits that this Agreement provides. The City and the County in turn galas gain certainty that improvements will be constructed tha vnil ie p alleviate the inadequaci e—soT the existing West Side infrastructure and minimize the transportation impacts of CHLP's project proposed development on the West Side of the City; 2 C:\WWOWN7EMPW228794 vRED.doe Draft Date: July 21, 2000 WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Agreement to vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with current law and land use regulations and to define and limit the conditions of development approval by the City and the County and iU their successors for development within the period of this Agreemen , NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I Recitals; Effective Date; Term of Agreement; Incorporation 1.1 The recitals above are incorporated herein as though set forth again in their entirety. 1.2 This Agreement shall be effective (the "Effective Date") fig upon the later to occur of: (1) adoption of the County erdimacs Ordinance approving this gre�ement and (2) adoption of the City Ordinance approving this Agreement pursuant to ORS 94.508. 1.3 The term of this Final Avuroval. This Approval, ess ter -m -Mate -if sooner. As usect herein, **Fmal Approval-wAa w shal an the granting of#w approve -1 o s pplication(s) and the expiration of the peno'—ic Mppeal, or if an appeal is filed, the reso u U -n ot thatapp D-ts- be the Rxpirwtioa- in a manner reasonably satisfactory to CHLP, such that CHLP may commence construction oa Destination Resort component of Its Proposed M 1.4 The Parties hereby agree that this PeWopmoM Agreement shall be incorporated into andTeemed a part of the Applications for the Proeosed Development. Adoption of the ordinances aouroving this Agreement sh-M e-cleemee to Be me tint step in the _land use use A-voll-en-tion for the Proposed Development was 3 c:%wirAowz\TEMrw228794 vREDA00 Draft Date: July 21, 2000 ARTICLE 10rojeet U Prnnosed Develonmen In its Applications, CHLP expects to seek (1) approval of a conceptual master plan ("CMP") and final master plan ("FMP") for a destination resort (the "Destination Resort"). CHLP currently expects the Destination Resort will have the following components: a conference hotel, a resort hotel, an 18 -hole golf course, retail uses in conjunction with the resort, condominiums and multi -family dwellings and single-family dwellings; (2) approval of various discretionary approvals subsequent to the approval of the CMP and FMP related to subdivisions, lot line adjustments, conditional use, site plan or variances as necessary to implement the approvals in (1) above; and (3) approval of subdivision and associated plats for fifty-two lots of single-family dwellings in the URA -10 zoning, not as a part of the Destination Resort. Collectively, 1, 2, and 3 are hereinafter referred to as the'!Rrej ict ='"Proposed Development " In connection with the Project Proposed Development and the rights- otCHLP vested herein, CHLP currently anticipates the density of i roposed Development shall not exceed 367 single-family dwellings, 243 multi -family dwellings, 128 condominiums.' 40,000 square feet of retail, 18 -hole golf course, 350 -room resort hotel and 250 -room conference hotel, (collectively, the "Maximum Density"). The Maximum Density has been used by the Parties in a supporting traffic study to determine the estimated number of vehicle trips to be generated by the P.rejoct Proposed Development. To the extent that CHLP changes its mix of development to respond to market conditions but does not increase the number of estimated vehicle trips, CHLP shall not be deemed to have exceeded its Maximum Density. ARTICLE JU Perms HIGendiflens to Parties' Obligation& Uses Pursuant to the JMA, development of the Property is subject to the City's land use ordinances. The Property is within the UAR-10 Zone, Urban Area Reserve Zone, pursuant to Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code. Approximately 1200 acres are zoned with a County Destination Resort overlay. The remaining acreage has been identified for consideration of a Destination Resort overlay as a part of the City's periodic review. Notwithstanding the content of any later -adopted zoning or development ordinance, development of the Brejoct Proposed Development during the period of this Agreement shall be subject to the permitted uses con nem me relevant portions of the Deschutes County Code (the "DCC') as the same exist as of the date on which CHLP has submitted its first land use Application in connection with the PWject Proposed Deve opmen or a date UN— Agreement NA eement goes into effect, whichever occurs Mt NOW a es g ate"). Accordinalv. We Destination eso over av annlicable to the 1200 acre of the 4 C%%wb bm%7WP a=79a vREDAM Draft Date: July 21, 2000 This Article III shall not be read so as to limit any utes permitted under any future zoning changes approved by the County or the City to any portion of the Property. ARTICLE VDensity LY Dem or Intensity of Use The density or intensity of use in connection with the development of the P -reject Proposed Development during the period of this Agreement shall be subject to the applicable standards con n in a DCC which exist as of the Standards Vesting Date, notwithstanding the content of any subsequently adopted zoning or development ordinance. ARTICLE WMaa-imem Y= Height and Size of Proposed Structures The maximum height and size of proposed structures within the Applications shall be governed by any applicable deed restrictions on the Property and any applicable portions of Title 19 of the DCC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City and the County agree that CHLP shall be pernutted to construct o e s to a helat ofeet, regardless o any heighta ons contained e zonine ordinance or any other avifficable ARTICLE 341Previsiaim 3a for Reservation or Dedication of Land for Public Purposes In its Applications, CHLP will identify the rights -of -ways or other public reservations (including easements and/or licenses) and dedications, if any, it will make in connection with the Pact Proposed Development, which shall be consistent with that certain Memorandum of Understan ing une 99, by and between CHLP and the Bend Metro Park District. ARTICLE 44HFees U EM and Charges &4- 7.1 Except as set forth below, CHLP and its successors and assigns shall pay all required application fees for land use, land divisions, land development approvals and building permit fees. LE, 7.2 Except as otherwise provided herein under Article X IX, CHLP shall have no obligatio to pay any transportation impact fees, finance any off -site -Transportation improvements, dedicate property for roads or street, bicycle paths or pedestrian trails, or construct any off-site transportation facilities, bicycle paths or pedestrian trails within the City. lid 5 CAMD&WATEMP1 M79a vRBDAW Draft Date: July 21, 2000 7.3 CHLP and its successors and assigns shall be required to pay only those charges or fees for development which are adopted by ordinance, resolution or order prior to any application for land development, use or division and which are uniformly imposed on similarly situated persons or entities, but specifically excluding those charges or fees described in Section 947.2. ARTICLE 1XSehedule YM Soli and Procedure for Compliance Review Commencing on the first anniversary of the Effective Date, CHLP shall prepare annual written reports of its compliance with the terms of this Agreement to the County and the City. Such reports shall include an update as to compliance with all schedules set forth herein. Aer receipt of such reports, the City and the County may request such additional or back-up information as it may deem reasonably necessary. ARTICLE �ospensibili� H jWMAsibiM for Providing Infrastructure and Services Pslr 9.1 In connection with the Maximum Density rights vested in Article II and the development standards vested in Articles 1141 3A 34 and W-1-1-1 and 1 ;nnl A ppr444 ..P+1.o i+' III, IV, V and VII, CHLP agrees to make the following off-site and transportation -related improvemen . .; In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, CHLP shall make a non-refundable Five Hundred Thousand Dollar ($500,000) contribution (the "Contribution") toward the cost of construction of the Southern Bridge Gwssi . While CHLP's Contribution shall be non-refundable, the balance of the cost of the Southern Bridge G;essiug to be paid by the other Consortium members will be reimbursed through the creation of it Local Improvement District or LID. The details of such LID shall be set forth in the Q4, ManagW6 Bridge Petition. Because the County is the party charged with administering land use appli-ca-tions in a Urban Area Reserve, CHLP shall make its Contribution to the County. Although CHLP shall "ost-bac not be obligated to pay its Contribution until suc6Rme as the City I pumuout 80 05--s- 120 executes a contract with a general contractor for the construction of the Southern Bridge, CHLF shall e liatelypost a letter of creffit as provided in section 9.3. The County agrees to promptly pay over suc amount to the City With the restriction that such amount be used solely toward the cost of constructing the Southern Bridge GwssL%g.: MIF 9.2 The County agraoc and the City agree that the Contribution and the improvements to be provtOW pursuant to this Affi—crem-m-sW5614a deemed to satisfy CHLP's transportation 6 Q%windows\TEMPW228794 vREDAw Draft Date: July 21, 2000 obligations in the City in connection with the MaxiAim Density of the }'reject Proposed Development set forth in Article II so that with respect to City transportation o rga ions, the Proposed Development is vested. Accordingly, the pct Proposed Development shall be deemed in compliance with, and neither the City no the County shall conduct no further off-site transportation reviews of the roposed Development's impact on iiTF site City transportation facilities pursuant to DCC Title 19, the Bend Urban Area General Planor any other current or subsequent transportation requirements or guidelines of the City or the County. Except for those improvements to be provided pursuant to this Article a, LK, neither the City nor the County shall attach no any other off-site transportation -related exac ion' nsnor require any rther traffic studies of the YN}oct=s Proposed Development's impact on City transportation facilities in connection with or as a condition to tile approv of CHLP's Pr-ejegt Proposed Development. This shall include, but not be limited to, construction of streets or intersections, improvement of intersections or other existing transportation facilities, construction of bicycle paths or pedestrian trails and dedication of rights-of-way for any of the above -identified purposes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CHLP's rights which are vested herein are dependent upon the Maximum Density of the }'reject Proposed Development set forth in Article II which is tied to the estimated number of vehicle trips to be generated by such Maximum Density. The Parties hereto understand that the mix of uses that make up the Maximum Density could change based on market forces. However, to the extent that CHLP submits Applications that would increase the number of vehicle trips to be generated by the Proposed Development, the Proposed Development may be subject to additional off-site transportation exactions 15asea upon projected spo ation impacts on City transportation facilities from the increased density, consistent with the County's (or City's, as applicable) policies and regulations. CHLP recognizes that if it proceeds with its DestinatioiT Resort, a ounty may condition approval of the related Applications upon CHLP's agreement to complete those other improvements identified on attached Exhibit C. TIM 9.3 Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date, CHLP shall, at its sole expense,oobtain a letter of credit from a financial institution licensed in the State of Oregon guaranteeing payment of the Contribution regardless of whether or not CHLP completes its &eject Proposed Development. The County, at the City's request, shall have the right to draw on the letter of credit in the event CHLP, through no fault of the City or the County, fails to pay the Contribution when due pursuant to Section 4" 9.1. ARTICLE KLUsu iees A ALMURRUM Relating to County's Ability to Serve Development; Continuing Effect of Agreement 10.1 ORS Section 94.504(6) requires that a Development Agreement "state the assump Yo underlying the agreement that relate to the ability of the ... city or county] to serve the development" The Intersection Petition, the Bridge Petition and the -d vTpment - agreements assure that there will be adequate off-site transportation infrastructure and facilities 7 C.%windows% EMW1228794 vREDAw Draft Date: July 21, 2000 to service CHLP's P-sejoct Proposed Development. The Parties assume that the Countyor the City. if the same occurs after annexation oa irrovertv into the City) will review the OF.di-a-unco adopting Ws Agwomom Standards Vesting Date to determine that the County !or the City, if applicable) is otherwise able to adequately serve CHLP's P-;ejoct. Proposed eve opmen . 44.2 10.2 In the case of any change in regional policy or federal or state law or other change in circumstance which renders compliance with the Agreement impossible or unlawful, the Parties will attempt to give effect to the remainder of the Agreement, but only if such effect does not prejudice the substantial rights of either Party under the Agreement. If the substantial rights of either Party are prejudiced by giving effect to the remainder of the Agreement, then the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to revise the Agreement to give effect to its original intent. If the Parties fail to agree to an amended Agreement within ninety (90) days of the commencement of negotiations, then either Party may request that an arbitrator give an equitable effect to the remainder of the Agreement, and the Agreement shall thereafter be amended pursuant to the order of the arbitrator. If, because of a change in policy, law or circumstances, the Agreement fails of its essential purpose (vesting of allowed uses and limitations on development conditions, vesting of maximum off-site transportation exactions and vesting of maximum permissible densities in connection therewith), then the Parties shall be placed into their original position to the extent practical. As used herein, however, "change in circumstance" does not include changes in local government land development or land division regulations. It is the intent of this Agreement to vest development rights and conditions, including, but not limited to the permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, maximum height and size of proposed structures, infrastructure improvements and fees and charges as set forth in Articles III, IV, VrAA and VII as of the Effective Date, nZwithstanding any change in local ordinance or policy. To the extent any local rule, ordinance, regulation or policy is adopted on a jurisdiction -wide basis, and is not inconsistent with the substance, and, in the reasonable discretion of CHLP, the purpose, of the vested development rights and conditions, the local rule, ordinance, regulation or policy shall be applicable.. . ARTICLE XJIGandagws-les XI Contingencies 11.1 The obligations of CHLP are contingent upon the following: dui City approving and entering into the development agreements identified on Exhibit D and accepting the Intersection and Bridge Petitions simultaneous to the Ci 's and County's approval and execution of this Agreement. 8 C:\windowATEMN228794 AED.doc Draft Date: July 21, 2000 ARTICLE XII Assignability of Agreement This Agreement shall be fully assignable, in whole or in part, by sit ie any Party and shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors assigns. If any portion of the Reject Proposed Development is sold, the rights and interests of CHLP under this Agreement shall inure to the benetit of the purchaser and CHLP. ARTICLE XAWetateISI Cooperation: Future Discretionary Approvals 444 13.1 The City and the County sees agree to cooperate with CHLP in securing all future necessary pen—U9 and approvals for the P;e}�e ,Proposed Development. .14.2 13.2 The City and the County agree to proceed with the work task order for c review to map the portion oa Property thatdoes not currently have the 13.3 The following future discretionary approvals are those currently anticipated for the it Proposed Development: 13.3.1 Conceptual master plan and final master plan approvals for the Destination Resort, together v -n i associated subdivisions, lot line adjustments, conditional uses, site plan or variances as necessary to implement the conceptual master plan and final master plan; and 13.3.2 Subdivision approval for single-family dwellings, not as a part of the Destination Resoor-Fogether with associated plats. WWI 13A To the extent any portion(s) of the above identified future discretionary approvals require Me application of standards or criteria that relate to off-site transportation or pedestrian or bicycle paths, trails or mutes within the City of Bend, those standards shall not be applicable to future discretionary approvals in connection with the Applications. 444 13.5 Except as provided in Section X4.313.4, the discretionary approvals shall be processe—under the standards, procedures and time tines established by the County in effect as of the Standards Vesting Date. In the event of any conflict between the terms, restrictions and 9 CAwindowz\TEMPW229794 vRED.doo Draft Date: July 21, 2000 requirements of DCC Title 19, DCC Title 17 or the Bend Urban Area General Plan affecting the development of the 12;ojort Proposed Development and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. ME 13.6 The discretionary approvals shall be reviewed by the County (or the City, if a lice a in the same manner and subject to the same procedures and hearings requirements as all other similar land use applications filed at the time of the Standards Vesting Date. ARTICLE odul a XIV Schedule CHLP proposes to commence construction in 2002 and to complete construction, including all phases, by 2012. ARTICLE XV Defaults 46.E 15.1 The following shall constitute a default on the part of a Party: 15.1.1 A breach of a material provision of this Agreement, whether by action or inaction of a Pa�ich continues and is not remedied within thirty (30) days another Party has given notice specifying the breach; provided that if the breach is of such a ria at it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty -day period, the cure period shall be extended to such amount of time as is reasonable but only if the breaching Party promptly commences, and thereafter diligently prosecutes, such cure. 444 15.2 Each Party shall have all available remedies at law or in equity to recover damages and compel the performance of the other Party pursuant to this Agreement. The rights and remedies afforded under this Agreement are not exclusive and shall be in addition to and cumulative with any an all rights otherwise available at law or in equity. The exercise by eith any Party of any one or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different time, of any other such remedy for the same default or breach or of any of its remedies for any other default or breach by the other Party, including, without limitation, the right to compel specific performance. ARTICLE XVI Force Majeure In the event that any Party (the "Delayed Party') is delayed or prevented from performing any of its obligations under this Agreement by reason of strikes, lockouts, labor problems, 10 CAw k&ws\TEMP\k229794 vREDAoc Draft Date: July 21, 2000 inability to procure materials, contractors, I rofessionlls, inability to obtain utilities or failure of utilities, laws or other governmental requirements, riots, war, or other cause not brought about by the Delayed Party, and not related to any financial liability on the part of the Delayed Party, the time for performance of the obligation shall be extended by a period of time equal to the period of such delay or prevention. ARTICLE XVII Annexation In the event that the Property or any portion thereof is annexed into the city limits of an incorporated city, thig Agreement shall no lenge continue to affect. the annexed territory, ezceist including the vested entitlement to develop th-e-?-r—op-e—rffTor the particular land uses granted iniA�r c es IIIA N, -V and 34 V and the limitation on off-site transportation exactions within the City limits provided in Article IX X. ARTICLE MXNeflees XYl II N°® Any notice, demand, request, approval, consent, or other communication (collectively referred to as a "Notice') concerning this Agreement or any matter arising in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the other Party ies at the address set forth below. Any Notice shall be given by either: (i) personal delivery ifi-w-uch event it shall be deemed given on the date of delivery; or (ii) certified mail return receipt requested in which event it shall be deemed given three (3) business days after the date deposited in any post office, branch post office, or official depository. Any Party may change any address for the delivery of Notice to such Party, by giving Notice in accordance with the provisions of this Section. The attorneys for the Parties may give any Notice. Notices Addresses: If to CHLP: Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership 61999 Broken Top Drive Bend, Oregon 97702 Attn: With a copy to: Ball Janik LLP 15 SW Colorado, Suite K Bend, Oregon 97702 Attn: Laura Craska Cooper If to County: Attn: 11 CAw1ndows\TEMP #22s79a vRED.doo With a copy to: With a copy to: Attn: ARTICLE XIX Miscellaneous Draft Date: July 21, 2000 19.1 City/County Funding. The Parties agree that any provision herein which requires—ie City orthe (;ounty to expend funds is contingent upon future appropriations as part of the CountyTiudg�e 'process. Nothing herein requires the Cior the County to appropriate such funds. 19.2 Waivers. No covenant, term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by any Party, unless such waiver is in writing signed by the Party charged with such waiver. Any waiver of any provision of this Agreement, or any right or remedy, given on any one or more occasions shall not be deemed a waiver with respect to any other occasion. 2,04 .. . 19.3 Entire Agreement/Modifications. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreemeffbetween and among the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein contained and all prior negotiations, discussions, writings and agreements between and among the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein contained are superseded and of noui'-r h once and effect. This Agreement cannot be amended or modified without a writing signed by all of the Parties hereto. 24A 19A Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of whichTall be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12 CA%in&ws\TEMPW229794 vRBDAm Draft Date: July 21, 2000 19.5 Captions. The captions contained inihis Agreement were inserted for the convenience of reference only. They do not in any manner define, limit, or describe the provisions of this Agreement or the intentions of the Parties. 2" 19.6 Gender/Singular/Plural. Whenever masculine, feminine, neuter, singular, plural, conjunctive, or disjunctive terms are used in this Agreement, they shall be construed to read in whatever form is appropriate to make this Agreement applicable to all the Parties and all circumstances, except where the context of this Agreement clearly dictates otherwise. FPM 19.7 Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provisions hereof shall not rendes any other provision herein contained unenforceable or invalid. 7HIA 19.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. =1 19.9 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Agreement as of the date set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement. "CHLP" CASCADE HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Oregon limited partnership By: Name: Title: "COUNTY" DESCHUTES COUNTY, a an Oregon municipal corporation Arogei By: Name: Title: 13 CAwindows\TBMP\#228794 vRBU.doc Draft Date: July 21, 2000 "CITY" THE CITY OF BEND, an Oregon municipal corporation By: Name: Title: 14 c:\windown\TEMPW228794 vRED.doc Draft Date: July 21, 2000 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED 181100 TAX LOT 100 R1 ARTICLE XXJ XXX A parcel of land, located in Section 1, Section 2, the east half of the east half (E1/2 El/2) of Section 11, the southwest quarter (SWI/4), the west half of the northeast quarter (WI/2 NEI/4), and the northwest quarter (NWI/4) of Section 12, all in Township 18 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: That parcel of land described in deed to Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership, recorded in volume 252, page 2196, on December 19, 1991, in Deschutes County Records, TOGETHER WITH: That portion of the southwest quarter (SWI/4) of Section 12, lying northerly of Cascade Lakes Highway, also known as Century Drive. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: That portion of the northwest quarter (NWl/4) of section 1, conveyed to SKYLINERS SUMMIT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, recorded June 28, 1996, in volume 414, page 2085, Deschutes County Records, and that portion of the northeast quarter of section 12, conveyed to SKYLINERS SUMMIT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, recorded July 11, 1997, in volume 454, page 1916, Deschutes County Records, and that portion of Metolius Drive lying in the northeast quarter (NEI/4) of said section 12, and the SEI/4 of said Section 1, ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: That portion of the southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 12, within Campbell Road, Lundgren Road and Swarens Road, ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A parcel of land, located in the southwest quarter (SWI/4) of Section 12, Township 18 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the center one-quarter corner of said section 12 (monumented by a 3" brass cap marked "David Evans and Associates", T18S, R11E, C1/4, S12, PLS 1068, 1990, the initial point and the true point of beginning; thence South 00°42'25" West along the east boundary of said SWIM of said section 12, as well as the west boundary of Lot 1, Block 7, "First On The Hill Sites", 450.34 feet; thence North 89°17'35" West, 30.00 feet; thence South 00042'25" West, 30.00 feet west of and parallel with said east boundary, 833.21 feet to the northerly right-of-way (R/W) of West Campbell Road, dedicated February, 1965 in Volume 9, Page 325, Deschutes County Commissioners Journals; thence along the aro of a 113.20 foot radius curve to the right, along said RNV, through a central angle of 28047'00", an are length of 56.87 feet (the chord of which bears South 15°05'55" West, 56.27 feet); thence South 29°29'25" West, along said R/W, 279.54 feet; thence along the are of a 113.20 foot radius curve to the right, along said R/W, through a central angle of 41°56'00", an are length of 82.85 feet (the chord of which bears South 50°27'25" West, 81.01 feet); thence South 71°25'25" West along said R/W, 306.80 feet; thence leaving said R/W, North 00°42'25" East, 530.00 feet west of and parallel with said east boundary, 301.85 feet; thence north 76°30'00" East, 206.31 feet; thence North 00°42'25" East, 330.00 feet west of and parallel 15 #228794 v5 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/0" Draft Date: July 21, 2000 with said east boundary, 415.00 feet; thence North 89°17'35" West, 200.00 feet; thence North 00°42'25" East, 530.00 feet west of and parallel with said east boundary, 400.00 feet; thence North 65000'00" East, 221.97 feet; thence North 00°42'25" East, 330.00 feet west of and parallel with said east boundary, 470:00 feet to the north boundary of said SW1/4; thence South 89°48'24" East along said north boundary, 330.01 feet to the true point of beginning. 16 #228794 vS - DEVELOPMENT AaREEMENT/CHLP Draft Date: July 21, 2000 EXHIBIT B Facilities Improvements 1. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of Mt. Washington Drive and Shevlin Park Road; 2. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of Mt. Washington Drive and Skyliners Road; 3. A double lane roundabout at the intersection of Mt. Washington Drive and Century Drive; 4. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of Newport Avenue and College Way; 5. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of Newport Avenue and 10 Street; 6. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of 9th and Newport; 7. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of 14th and Galveston; 8. A single lane roundabout at the intersection of 14th and Simpson; 9. Completion of Mt. Washington Drive from Skyliners Road to the Troon Avenue intersection; 10. Completion of Mt. Washington Drive from Century Drive to the Southern Bridge QOssinS; 11. Completion of Skyliners Road from Lindsay Court to Mt. Washington Drive; and 12. Construction of a bridge over the Deschutes River where the proposed extension of Reed Market Road from the Parkway will cross the River. 17 #228794 vS - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/CHIP Draft Date: July 21, 2000 EXHIBIT C Other Improvements Subject to the terms provided herein, in the event that CHLP proceeds with its Destination Resort, the County may condition approval of the related Applications upon CHLP's agreement to construct the following transportation -related improvements: (a) Construction of a North/South Collector (the "New Collector") through the Property, which New Collector would intersection with Century Drive and Skyliners; (b) Construction of intersection improvements at the intersection of the New Collector and Century Drive; (c) Construction of intersection improvements at the intersection of the New Collector and Skyliners; and Collector. (d) Extension of Metolius from its existing western terminus to the New 18 #228794 vS - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/CW I J Draft Date: July 21, 2000 LXHIBd D Development Agreements Individual Development Agreements relating to development on the West Side of the City by and between the City and the following Consortium members: 1. Brooks Resources Corporation; 2. West Bend Property Company, LLC; 3. Broken Top Limited Partnership; 4. Skyliner Summit Limited Partnership; 5. Century Park LLC; 6. Shevlin Heights Limited Partnership; 7. Central Oregon Community College; and 7. River Bend Limited Partnership. 19 #228794 v5 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/CHLP _------------ -------------- -7-7701 h�.e� /�u rte' S' • i� ,� /� � � ��oz �����- ce alt � . �'" ��, z • 2 � •� • �� � no lL r�- �W.� �• �-7 ee-; P . a��'�r Yom-; �e � ���s►�i •�e-z� / o�� o.A0 74 rS P Iez .ev, sz %RLU DeC4 P.O. Box 1508 Sisters. OR 97759 541 • 549-1117 541 • 548-6544 Board of Directors Bob Bates Bend Jeffrey Boyer Bend William Boyer Sisters July 26, 2000 Chairman Linda Swearingen Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman Street Bend, OR 97701 Public Hearing: File Number: IA -00-4 Applicant: Cascade Highlands Honorable Chair Swearingen: I am Howard Paine representing the Alliance For Responsible Land Use In Deschutes County (ARLU DeCo). We believe, it is not in the best interest of the citizens of Bend and Deschutes County to approve this Development Agreement. A $500,000 contribution toward the cost of the southern bridge falls way short of the traffic impact costs generated by this proposed resort. The impact goes far beyond Bend's westside, the 600 homes alone will generate 6,000 average daily trips (ADT) to the streets of Bend. It is unconscionable that Deschutes County would sign an agreement that says the Ron Caramella developer would not be responsible for any additional city and county road Redmond improvements. There should be na mitigation cap. William Kuhn To allow development into the Urban Reserve area now is contrary to the Bend Bend Area General Plan which says the Urban Reserve may be needed for "long term -- 30-50 year --growth and expansion". The Plan was only adopted in 1998. Howard Paine We recommend denial of this application. Thank you. Sisters Respectfully submitted, Ernest Poole ^� La Pine Howard Paine, President The Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County ,j NElc0 1 ��•.- I m iI I i 1 I i I c c a, E 10 ay I I 2 j I co V 'v 4 Awl .w V s, cr th o .o a Y zIN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing at 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 2000 in the Commission hearing room in the County Administration Building at 1130 NW Harriman, Bend, to receive public testimony on a proposed development agreement with Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership (CHLP). CHLP is a member of the West Bend Traffic Consortium, a group of landowners who wish to develop their individual lands on Bend's west side and who have submitted a proposal to the city of Bend to make transportation facility improvements on the west side. CHLP's property is a large property (Tax Lots 17-11-00-6203, 17-11-36-500, 18-11-00-100, 18-11-12-301, 18-11-1- 300) (hereinafter referred to as "the Property") located west of the Broken Top development and between Century Dive and Skyliner Road. The Property is located outside the city limits of Bend and is under the land use planning jurisdiction of Deschutes County. The Consortium's proposal includes a local improvement district addressing certain street and intersection improvements within the City of Bend, a local improvement district to finance the construction for a southern bridge crossing across the Deschutes River within the City of Bend, and development agreements to establish future development rights to the properties included in the Consortium proposal and associated off-site transportation impacts. At the hearing, Deschutes County will be considering a development agreement that specifies the extent to which CHLP may develop the Property under existing zoning and subdivision regulations (including such issues as establishment of permitted uses, density or intensity of uses, maximum heights of structures, a schedule of compliance review, responsibility for providing infrastructure and services) and which establishes the off-site transportation improvements that will be required in connection with CHLP's development of the Property under the Consortium proposal. The proposed uses on the CHLP property include residential uses and a destination resort. Development agreements are governed by the provisions of ORS 94.504 through 94.528, and the development agreement will be reviewed against the criteria set forth in the statute. Information including applications, documents and evidence that will be considered can be examined at no charge at the Deschutes County Community Development Department, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend, OR 97701. Contact Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner at (541) 388-6554. Copies of such documentation will be provided at reasonable cost. Any staff report used at the hearing will be available 7 days in advance of the hearing. Oral testimony may be given at the hearing, or comments may be submitted in writing to the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Attn: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner, in advance of the hearing. Participants may request an opportunity to leave the record open for receipt of additional evidence. Issues not raised at the hearing or in writing before the hearing with sufficient specificity to permit an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude awveal on that issue. JUL '.000 MAILED DESCHUTES COUNN FABOCCC LP Dev. Asreemeat - Nodoe - 072600.doo