The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrder 036 - Arrowood Appeal Denial Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of November 24, 2014 _____________________________ DATE: November 17, 2014 FROM: Paul Blikstad Department CDD Phone # 6554 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Board approval of Order 2014-036, denying to hear an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision approving, with conditions, a Tentative Plat, Site Plan and Landscape Management review for a 24-lot zero lot line subdivision with associated dwelling units in the Widgi Creek Residential District (file nos. TP-14-1024, SP-14-8, LM-14-17, and 247-14-000344-RC). PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The above-listed applications have been approved, with conditions, by the County Hearings Officer in the written decision dated September 29, 2014. The applicant requested a Reconsideration of the Hearings Officer decision, and that reconsideration decision was dated November 6, 2014. An appeal of the original decision was submitted by opponents, which must now be considered by the Board per DCC 22.32. The mandated 150-day review period expires on November 28, 2014. There is no opportunity for the Board to hear the appeal and meet the 150-day deadline. The applicant has notified Planning staff that they will not extend or toll the 150-day review period. Because the applicant has not agreed to extend the 150-day deadline in order to hear the appeal, although the deadline is not until November 28, 2014, staff requests that the Board approve Order 2014-036 denying hearing the appeal or any other appeal that may be filed for this application. Staff requests this preemptive order because the County offices are closed on November 28, 2014 and there will be no opportunity to for the Board to approve or deny the order after that date. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Because staff is requesting that the Board deny hearing the appeal, any further appeal will be to LUBA and 75% of the appeal fee will be returned to the appellants. The County retains 25% of the appeal fee to cover the staff costs in preparing the order and agenda request for the Board. If the Board waits until after November 28, 2014 to approve the order, the County would have to refund to the applicant the unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Order 2014-036 ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, Laurie Craghead DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Copy of signed Order to Paul Blikstad as soon as possible after the Order is signed. ..:··· I. j l j Community Development DepartmentI Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soil. Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: November 18,2014 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: File Nos. TP-14-1024, SP-14-8, LM-14-17, Tentative Plat, Site Plan and Landscape Management review for a 24-lot zero lot line subdivision and associated dwelling units in the Widgi Creek Residential District. 1. Background The applicant, Arrowood Development, LLC submitted the following applications: • Tentative Plat for a 24-lot zero lot line subdivision in the Widgi Creek Residential District • Site Plan and Landscape Management review for the dwelling units on the proposed 24 lots These applications went before the County Hearings Officer, who approved the applications in the written decision dated September 29, 2014. The Hearings Officer's decision was appealed by the Widgi Creek Homeowners Association, Elkai Woods Homeowners Association, and the Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Association (through one joint appeal application). Unrelated to the appeal, the applicant filed an application for a Reconsideration of the Hearings Officer's decision, specifically relating to the proposed water system review requirements. Under the County Procedures Ordinance, the applicant's request for Reconsideration is processed first, ahead of the appeal. The Reconsideration request dealt with the approval of the water system for the subdivision. The Hearings Officer issued her written decision on the Reconsideration (File No. 247-14-000344-RC), which was mailed out on November 6, 2014. The decision is comprehensive, addresses all factual and legal issues, and provides substantial analysis which will be relevant to any further appeal(s). 2. Appeal The appeal of TP-14-1024, SP-14-8 and LM-14-17 must now be processed. The 150-day review period under ORS 215.427 and Deschutes County Code 22.20.040 for these applications ends on November 28, 2014. Because the Hearings Officer's decision is so Quality Services Performed 'With Pride comprehensive and substantial, staff recommends that the Board elect not to hear the appeal, (thereby confirming the Hearings Officer's decision as the final county decision). Further appeal, if any, will be to the Land Use Board of Appeals. 3. Attachments Attached with this memorandum are the following: • Hearings Officer's initial decision (File Nos. TP-14-1024, SP-14-8, LM-14-17) • Hearings Officer's Reconsideration decision (File No. 247-14-000344-RC) • Appellant's initial notice of appeal, and amended notice of appeal (File No. 247-14 000345-A) • Map showing the proposed subdivision • Map showing the location of the subdivision relative to the surrounding area -------- REVIEWED ~VYtt LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Denying Review of Hearings Officer's * Decision in File Nos. TP-14-1024, SP-14-8, LM-ORDER NO. 2014-036 * 14-17 (247-14-000345-A). * WHEREAS, Widgi Creek Homeowners Association, Elkai Woods Homeowners Association and Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Associated appealed the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision on application nos. TP-14-1024, SP-14-8, LM-14-17; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That the Board will not hear on appeal application 247-14-000345-A. Section 2. The appellant shall be granted a refund of some of the appeal fees, according to County Procedures. Section 3. The Board also declines to hear any other appeals of the hearings officer's that may be filed. Dated this of , 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair ATTEST: fRecording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner I Page 1 of 1 -ORDER NO. 2014-036 I I . . ~:""""2@-'...• ~..;""'r. ,.~"i7~ :.' .... , ......='" ~.': ....;MIIWL;:=:-j" .~ \ .... ~..~..'.:..':. PFlIVAtE' ROAD • SECnON .;' N;.» ~ 'SUN ,COUNTRY ENGINEERING & . SURVEYING. INC. _ E' _. ROAn bEllO. 0_ ....... rHOS (MI' '_0'" .1HiUI u.c " !'WI) _rES u.c 250 1M _..... ,10' BOIJ.. OR .77D I ~ ,'R'.-TTl. ..... r ...,.· '., ',.,' :~rib;';~f':~fYT~a:: .:......,'. .,.;.' (--:--: I I . ~~ •• : ..'.'. ". :'C!t ;:JG9--•,].JJ I"OIt THe MILE POST ONE 5U8OM""" 11UCT "A' Of' f>OINfS W[ST SUtaW:SlOfri .. l'HE K 1/4 or sttttQff 22.", TOWMStV ,. SOUJK. .... it lASf • .w.u..,O£SCHUIES COUIITl'; __ ' , ' At" IGAHTIQWIQ: IlHELN L1C • NO A.Ss0r:::t.4TD u.c _ ... ~f20• • ""',oa,tmol :~~·-;~&'t:,> (:W') 382~" 0 rsomnu .... ' '." .'.~ . TAX IPn,: '.1.6,,~,; OI40.0:,t~d,492: . 1 • =:.~ ,:.~.~~~.~:.,:..... ~:. '~"'::"/'~~;' .," w..._-- -:\'" .' ----- FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP c.E. "W,N" FRANCIS " ATTORNEYS AT LAw CHRISTOPHER J~ MANFREDI t MARTIN E. HANSEN" 1148 NW HILL STREET, BEND, OR 97701-1914 AUSONA. HUYCKE GERALD A. MARTIN SARAH E. HARLOSPIiQNE: 54J 73:89-:5010 " fai\: .5;41 :-.382~70~6a . . MICHAEL H.McCEAN 't WWW.FRANCISHANSEN.COM ALIsON G. RbHENGARTEr;., 'ADMITTED IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON t ADMITTED IN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA November 10, 2014 ,RECEIVEDay: NOV 10 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY. DELIVERED BY: ' Deschutes County Community Development Department Attn: Paul J3likstad ., 117 NW lafayette Avenue Bend. OR 97701 Re: Application of Arrowood TP 14-1024; SP-14-8; lM 14-17; 247-14-000344-RC . Dear Paul: I representthe VVidgi Creek Homeowners Association. the Elkai Wood Homeowners , Association. and the Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Association. Enclosed please find my clients' Amended Notice of Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision in the above:.captioned matter, as modified by the Decision on Reconsic;ieration dated November 5. 2014. The filing fee for the appeal is already on deposit, submitted with my clients' initial Notice of Appeal. Please contact me if you have any questions. ./ Sincerely. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP ~ Michael H. McGean Enclosure cc: Clients Tia Lewis f j ~ ~ I BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES I COUNTY IN RE: APPLICATION OF ARROWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC I i ,! I !! In re File Nos. TP-14-1024; SP-14-8; LM-14-17; 247-14-000344-RC APPLICATION OF ARROWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC I ! I AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION, AS MODIFIED BY DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION I! DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2014 I Appellants previously filed their Notice of Appeal to the Board of County I Commissioners in the above-captioned matter. That prior Notice of Appeal is incorporated herein by this referenced. The Hearings Officer Decision was subsequently modified upon reconsideration, and is in error as set forth below. I I 1. Standing.! ,I I Appellants have standing because they are an interested party, and filed I I comments and/or offered testimony below on the application being appealed. I i 2. Statement of Issue. I Appellants contend that the Hearing Officer erred by rejecting the arguments in their written submissions and testimony at the hearing in this matter, and in making the following findings and/or conclusion: a. By concluding that a 2006 Hearings Officer Decision for a condominium project that was never built is controlling on the application in this case, or as otherwise binding upon Appellants; b. By finding that the resort community zone superseded in whole or in part the Seventh Mountain/widgi Creek Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit CU-83-1 07 and other zoning permits upon which development occurred according to that Master Plan; Page 1 of 3 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP 1148 N.W. HILL STREET BEND, OR 97701-1914 TEL: (541)389-5010 • FAX: (541)382-7068 WWW.FRANCISHANSEN.COM c. By otherwise finding that compliance with the Seventh Mountainl Widgi Creek Master Plan, including but not limited to the 65% open space standard for the Master Plan, is not required for the application; d. By interpreting the Resort Community Zone in a manner that conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County at Section 4.7 and state regulations for land use planning for Resort Communities; e. By finding that Hearings Officer Briggs' conclusion "that in the absence of an open space or common area designation for the portion of the subject property and the Points West Subdivision within the Widgi Creek master planned area, that property was assumed to be--and was-available for residential development" controls the question of whether the portion of the subject property within the Widgi Creek master planned area may be developed with dwellings (H.O. Decision, p. 6); f. By finding that Appellants, or any of them, admitted that "there remained authorization for only 17 more townhomes within the Widgi Creek master planned area, and because the Points West Subdivision was approved with 8 townhome lots located partially within the Widgi Creek master planned area, the applicant's proposal to develop 10 townhomes on the subject property within the Widgi Creek master planned area exceeds the maximum number of town homes -regardless of what the Resort Community Zone permits." (Decision at p. 8); g. By finding that Appellants' objections in this matter that the subject property is subject to the Seventh Mountain Master Plan "[amount] to an improper collateral attack in this proceeding on the 2006 and 2009 Decisions" (Decision at p.9); and h. By finding that applicant's 24 lot zero lot line subdivision is permitted outright in the Resort Community Zone/Residential District without consideration of compliance with the Seventh Mountain Master Plan. Page 2 of 3 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP 1148 N.W. HILL STREET BEND, OR 97701-1914 TEL: (541)389-5010 • FAX: (541)382-7068 WWW.FRANCISHANSEN.COM 3. Request for Review. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants therefore request review by the Board of County Commissioners. Appellants request de novo review by the Board because it requires the interpretation of a significant question about the interpretation of the Deschutes County Resort Community Zone ordinance. Dated this IO~ day. of November 2014. RTIN LLP ic ael . Me ean #004734 Of Attorneys for Appellants Elkai Woods Homeowners Association Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Association Widgi Creek Homeowners Association Page 3 of 3 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP 1148 N.W. H!LLSTREETBEND, OR 97701-1914 TEL: (541)389-5010· FAX: (541)382-7068 WWW.FRANCISHANSEN.COM --- Community Development Department Planning Division -- P.O. Box 6005 117 t-NV Lafayette Avenue 1 I ~ I I Building Safety DiYlslon Environmental Soils Division Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541}385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ APPEAL APPLICA TION FEE: $4,657 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Michael H. McC5ean, OSB #004734, Francis Hansen & Martin, o.h.o Widgi Creek Homeowners Ass'n; Elkai Woods Appellant's Name (print): Homeowners Ass'n; Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Ass'nphone: ~)_38_9_-5_0_10_____ Mailing Address: 1148 NW Hill Street City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97701 Land Use Application Being Appealed: _T:..:P,--=-14..:..-...:.1"",,0=24":"::L..;:S::..:P,--..'!..14..:..-..;::8.>..:=L.:.;.M""-"-14.:...--=.1..:..7______________ Property Description: Township 18 Range-...:..ll~_Section 22 Tax Lot,---,I,-4_00--<..,;..:...14_0'-2'---'________ Appellant's Signature: &-.&:0'------ EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE!~~~RING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN REC~~. (over) g ~ lru\~ Cf\ ~Q h·"1l'.L-~~~~.~ 3/13 I 1 I I I f I I I NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. Standing. Appellants have standing because they are an interested party, and filed comments and/or offered testimony below on the application being appealed. 2. Statement of Issue. Appellants contend that the Hearing Officer erred by rejecting the arguments in their written submissions and testimony at the hearing in this matter, and in making the following findings and/or conclusion: a. By concluding that a 2006 Hearings Officer Decision for a condominium project that was never built is controlling on the application in this case, or as otherwise binding upon Appellants; b. By finding that the resort community zone superseded in whole or in part the Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit CU-83-1 07 and other zoning permits upon which development occurred according to that Master Plan; c. By otherwise finding that compliance with the Seventh Mountainl Widgi Creek Master Plan, including but not limited to the 65% open space standard for the Master Plan, is not required for the application; d. By interpreting the Resort Community Zone in a manner that conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County at Section 4.7 and state regulations for land use planning for Resort Communities; e. By finding that Hearings Officer Briggs' conclusion "that in the absence of an open space or common area deSignation for the portion of the subject property and the Points West Subdivision within the Widgi Creek master planned area, that property was assumed to be-and was-available for residential development" controls the question of whether the portion of the subject property within the Widgi Creek master planned area may be developed with dwellings (H.O. DeCiSion, p. 6); f. By finding that Appellants, or any of them, admitted that "there remained authorization for only 17 more townhomes within the Page 1 of 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL I ~j 1 !l ~ Widgi Creek master planned area, and because the Points West j Subdivision was approved with 8 townhome lots located partially i within the Widgi Creek master planned area, the applicant's j proposal to develop 10 townhomes on the subject property within t I~ .1 the Widgi Creek master planr'led area exceeds the maximum i number of town homes -regardless of what the Resort Community i Zone permits." (Decision at p. 8); i• g. By finding that Appellants' objections in this matter that the subject property is subject to the Seventh Mountain Master Plan "[amount] i to an improper collateral attack in this proceeding on the 2006 and I ~ 2009 Decisions" (Decision at p.9); and I h. By finding that applicant's 24 lot zero lot line subdivision is permitted outright in the Resort Community Zone/Residential District without consideration of compliance with the Seventh Mountain Master Plan. 3. Request for Review. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants therefore request review by the Board of County Commissioners. Appellants request de novo review by the Board because it requires the interpretation of a significant question about the interpretation of the Deschutes County Resort Community Zone ordinance. Dated this /tf!rday of October 2014. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Michael H. McGean aSB #004734 Of Attomeys for Appellants Elkai Woods Homeowners Association Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Association Widgi Creek Homeowners Association Page 2 of 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: PROPOSAL: STAFF REVIEWER: HEARING DATE: RECORD CLOSED: ORIGINAL DECISION: RECONSIDERATION FILED: TP-14-1024. SP-14-8. LM-14-17. 247-14-000344-RC Arrowood Development. LLC c/o Schwabe. Williamson &Wyatt 549 S.W. Mill View Way. Suite 100 Bend. Oregon 97702 Arrowood Development. LLC Bhelm. LLC c/o Schwabe, Williamson &Wyatt 549 S.W. Mill View Way, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97702 Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson &Wyatt 549 S.W. Mill View Way, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97702 The applicant requests reconsideration of the Hearings Officer's decision granting with conditions tentative plan approval for a 24 lot zero-lot line subdivision to be called "Mile Post One," and site plan and landscape management approval for dwellings on the subdivision lots, on property zoned Resort Community and LM and located adjacent to the Seventh Mountain, Widgi Creek and Elkai Woods developments approximately five miles west of Bend. Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner July 1, 2014 July 29,2014 September 29. 2014 October 9, 2014 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 ofthe Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030, Definitions Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247 -14-000344-RC Page 1 of 8 2. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone * Section 18.84.020, Application of Provisions * Section 18.84.030, Uses Permitted Outright * Section 18.84.050, Use Limitations * Section 18.84.080, Design Review Standards * Section 18.84.090, Setbacks * Section 18.84.095, Scenic Waterways 3. Chapter 18.110, Resort Community Zone * Section 18.110.030, Widgi Creek Residential District * Section 18.110.060, Development Standards 4. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions * Section 18.116.030, Off-Street Parking and Loading * Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking 5. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review. * Section 18.124.030, Approval Required * Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria * Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards B. Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance 1. Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development Plans * Section 17.16.100, Required Findings for Approval * Section 17.16.105, Access to Subdivisions 2. Chapter 17.20, Zero Lot Subdivision * Section 17.20.010, Requirements 3. Chapter 17.36, Design Standards * Section 17.36.020, Streets * Section 17.36.040, Existing Streets * Section 17.36.050, Continuation of Streets * Section 17.36.060, Minimum Right of Way and Roadway Width * Section 17.36.080, Future Extension of Streets * Section 17.36.120, Street Names * Section 17.36.130, Sidewalks * Section 17.36.140, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Requirements * Section 17.36.150, Blocks Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247-14-000344-RC Page 2 of 8 * Section 17.36.160, Easements * Section 17.36.170, Lots -Size and Shape * Section 17.36.180, Frontage * Section 17.36.260, Fire Hazards * Section 17.36.280, Water and Sewer Lines * Section 17.36.300, Public Water System 4. Chapter 17.44, Park Development * Section 17.44.010, Dedication of Land * Section 17.44.020, Fee in Lieu of Dedication 5. Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications * Section 17.48.160, Road Development Requirements -Standards B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings * Section 22.24.140, Continuances and Record Extensions 2. Chapter 22.30, Reconsideration * Section 22.30.010, Reconsideration * Section 22.30.020, Procedure * Section 22.30.030, Limitation on Reconsideration C. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 1. ORS Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions * ORS 92.090, Approval of Subdivision Plat Names II. FINDINGS OF FACT: FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer adopts and incorporates by reference herein the Findings of Fact included in my original decision, with the exception of the following findings which supersede the findings in Paragraph F of the original decision: F. Procedural History: The tentative plan, site plan and LM site plan applications were submitted on April 4, 2014 and were accepted by the county as complete on May 5, 2014. Therefore, the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision would have expired on October 2,2014. A public hearing on the applications was held on July 1, 2014. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through July 22, 2014, and allowed the applicant through July 29,2014 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The record closed on that date. Because the applicant agreed to extend the written record from July 1 through Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247-14-000344-RC Page 3 of 8 July 29, 2014, under Section 22.24.140 of the Development Procedures Ordinance, the 150-day period was extended for 28 days and would have expired on October 30,2014. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on September 29,2014 approving the applicants' request for tentative plan and site plan approval subject to 36 conditions of approval. On October 9, 2014, the applicant submitted its request for reconsideration of the decision, including a completed county application form and a two-page memorandum from the applicants' attorney Tia Lewis (hereafter "reconsideration memorandum"). On October 15, 2014 the county mailed a Notice of Reconsideration to all parties. The notice advised the parties they could submit written comments on the proposed reconsideration through October 27, 2014. The record indicates no comments were received by the county before expiration of the comment period. However, by an electronic mail message dated October 10, 2014 to Senior Planner Paul Blikstad, Ms. Lewis stated the applicants agreed to toll the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427 during the period of the reconsideration. Based on the applicants' agreement to toll the 150-day period, the extended 150-day period was tolled from October 9, 2014 through November 6, 2014, a period of 28 days, and now expires on November 28,2014. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.30, Reconsideration a. Section 22.30.010, Reconsideration A. An applicant may request that the Hearings Officer's decision be reconsidered as set forth herein. A request for reconsideration shall be accompanied by a fee established by the County and by the applicant's written consent that the 1S0-day time clock will not run during the period of the reconsideration. FINDINGS: The record includes a copy of the applicant's request for reconsideration and a receipt for payment of the application fee. As noted in the Findings of Fact above, the applicants submitted a written agreement to toll the 150-day period on October 10, 2014. Although this consent did not accompany the request for reconsideration, the Hearings Officer finds no legitimate purpose would be served by denying the requested reconsideration on that basis. I find that because the applicants' written consent to toll the 150-day period was received before this decision was issued, the applicants satisfied the requirements of this paragraph. B. Grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following instances where an alleged error substantially affects the rights of the applicant: 1. Correction of an error in a condition established by the Hearings Officer where the condition is not supported by the record or is not supported by law. Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247-14-000344-RC Page 4 of 8 / 2. Correction of errors that are technical or clerical in nature. FINDINGS: The applicant's reconsideration memorandum describes the basis for its reconsideration request as falling under Paragraph (6)(1) of this section -i.e., "to correct errors in Conditions 10, 14 and 21 by revising and combining the conditions to accurately reflect the facts and law." Conditions 10, 14 and 21 provide as follows: "PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR APPROVAL: '" '" '" 1O. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Oregon Health Division that the Division has given any required plan review and approval of the Seventh Mountain water supply for use in the Mile Post One Subdivision. '" * * 14. The applicant/owner shall extend water lines to the boundary of each lot and provide written documentation from the Seventh Mountain Association of Unit Owners (AUO) to the Deschutes County Planning Division that the lines have been constructed to the AUO's standards and specifications for the Seventh Mountain water system. * * * PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: * '" * 21. The applicant/owner shall apply for and obtain all required plan review and approval for use of the Seventh Mountain water system, and submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Seventh Mountain AUO of such review and approval, if any, that the Seventh Mountain water system is operational, and that water lines have been extended to each lot. n The applicant asserts Conditions 10, 14 and 21 are not supported by the law and the record for the following reasons. 1. The applicant's water distribution facilities are separate from the Seventh Mountain Resort and regulated by the Oregon Health Authority. 2. The Seventh Mountain Resort does not have standards or a process for review/approval of Arrowood's water distribution facilities. Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247-14-000344-RC Page 5 of 8 In support of these bases for reconsideration, the applicant argued in its reconsideration memorandum: "The applicant shares a water source and certain water pumping facilities with the Seventh Mountain Resort pursuant to private easements and agreements as submitted into the record. However, the applicant has its own water rights, its own distribution facilities and its own water company, Arrowood Community Water Company, LLC formed in 2006 (attached corporate entity data). This water company is its own separate entity with separate infrastructure and is the sole entity responsible for providing water to the Points West and Mile Post One developments. Seventh Mountain Resort has its own water company and its own distribution facilities as well. Both water companies are regulated separately under Oregon's Drinking Water Quality Act, ORS 448.115 et seq. and associated administrative rules. The Drinking Water Services (DWS) division of the Oregon Health Authority administers and enforces the drinking water quality standards for water systems in the State of Oregon and is the regulatory authority for the applicant's private water company. DWS requires Arrowood Community Water to certify its system and operators and Arrowood does so separately from the Seventh Mountain Resort. While part of this certification necessarily involves review of the shared water supply facilities, it is a separate process and permit for each company. n " " " Seventh Mountain Resort does not have standards or specifications, any written process or a person qualified to review and approve Arrowood's water distribution facilities. The relationship between Arrowood and AVO is governed by private easement agreements enforceable by the parties. At the close of the public hearing, the AVO, through its counsel, agreed with this and withdrew its request for any condition requiring written documentation from the AVO regarding the water system. A copy of this July 15, 2014 letter is attached hereto." For these reasons, the applicant proposes Conditions 10, 14 and 21 be replaced by the following condition to be met prior to submitting the final subdivision plat for approval: "The applicant/owner shall extend water lines to the boundary of each lot and shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Oregon Health Authority that the Authority has given any required plan review and approval of the water distribution system operated by Arrowood Community Water Company, LLC for the Mile Post One subdivision." The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant that it is not necessary to require as part of Conditions 14 and 21 that the applicant demonstrate the water system serving the Mile Post One Subdivision meets standards of the Seventh Mountain AUO. The record includes a letter from the AUO's attorney stating the private agreements between the applicant and the Seventh Mountain related to the water system adequately protect the AUO, and that the applicant's engineer confirmed the shared water system is adequate to accommodate the Mile Post One Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247 -14-000344-RC Page 6 of 8 Subdivision. With respect to the requirement in Condition 10 concerning documentation from the Oregon Health Authority, the Hearings Officer'S intent was to require that the applicant demonstrate the water system serving the Mile Post One Subdivision -including any shared facilities owned and operated by the Seventh Mountain water system -receives any and all required Health Authority approval prior to the applicant submitting the final subdivision plat for approval. I concur with the applicant that the language in Conditions 10 and 21 does not meet that intent. Nevertheless, I find the applicant's proposed alternate condition language also is not adequate in that it does not reflect the fact that the water system for the Mile Post One Subdivision will include facilities shared with the Seventh Mountain resort. The applicant's reconsideration memorandum appears to acknowledge that the Health Authority must review the shared water supply facilities, even though that review is done separately for each water company. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Conditions 10, 14 and 21 should be modified on reconsideration to read as follows: 10. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Oregon Health Authority that the Authority has given any required plan review and approval of the Seventh Mountain water distribution system's facilities to be used for delivery of water to the Mile Post One Subdivision. 1 14. The applicant/owner shall extend water lines to the boundary of each lot. I ! 21. The applicant/owner shall apply to and obtain from the Oregon Health Authority any and all required plan review and approval for the Arrowood Community Water Company water distribution system to serve the Mile i Post One Subdivision, and to submit to the Deschutes County Planning DiviSion written documentation from the Authority of any such review and approval.i .c' .IV. DECISION:I Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer finds: i I ON RECONSIDERATION, CONDITIONS 10, 14 and 21 OF THE DECISION IN TP·14·1024, SP·14-8, LM·14·17 ARE MODIFIED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: I 10. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Oregon Health Authority I that the Authority has given any required plan review and approval I of the Seventh Mountain water distribution system's facilities to beI used for delivery of water to the Mile Post One Subdivision. ! 14. The applicant/owner shall extend water lines to the boundary ofI each lot. I I Arrowood Reconsideration I P-14-24, SP-14-B, LM-14-17 I 247-14-000344-RC Page 7 of 8 I l 21. The applicant/owner shall apply to and obtain from the Oregon Health Authority any and all required plan review and approval for the Arrowood Community Water Company water distribution system to serve the Mile Post One Subdivision, and to submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Authority of any such review and approval. / Dated this 5th day of November, 2014. Mailed this /a,f::> day of November, 2014. ~JL-KarenH:Gi"een, Hearings Officer Arrowood Reconsideration P-14-24. SP-14-8, LM-14-17 247 -14-000344-RC Page 8 of 8 DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: TP-14-1024, SP-14-8, LM-14-17 APPLICANT: Arrowood Development, LLC clo Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 549 S.W. Mill View Way, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97702 PROPERTY OWNERS: Arrowood Development, LLC Bhelm, LLC clo Schwabe, Williamson &Wyatt 549 S.W. Mill View Way, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97702 APPLICANT'S ATIORNEY: Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 549 S.W. Mill View Way, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97702 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests tentative plan approval for a 24-Iot line subdivision to be called "Mile Post One," as well as site p landscape management review for the proposed dwellings subdivision lots, on property zoned Resort Community and located adjacent to the Seventh Mountain, Widgi Creek an Woods developments approximately five miles west of Bend. zero lan on LM d Elkai -lot and the and STAFF REVIEWER: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner HEARING DATE: July 1, 2014 RECORD CLOSED: July 29, 2014 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions ... Section 18.04.030, Definitions 2. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone ... Section 18.84.020, Application of Provisions ... Section 18.84.030, Uses Permitted Outright ... Section 18.84.050, Use Limitations ... Section 18.84.080, Design Review Standards ... Section 18.84.090, Setbacks ... Section 18.84.095, Scenic Waterways 3. Chapter 18.110, Resort Community Zone ... Section 18.110.030, Widgi Creek Residential District TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 1 ,. Section 18.110.060, Development Standards 4. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions ,. Section 18.116.030, Off-Street Parking and Loading ,. Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking 5. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review. '" Section 18.124.030, Approval Required '" Section 18.124.060, Approval Criferia '" Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards B. Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, the Subdivision/Panition Ordinance 1. Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development Plans '" Section 17.16.100, Required Findings for Approval '" Section 17.16.105, Access to Subdivisions 2. Chapter 17.20, Zero Lot Subdivision '" Section 17.20.010, Requirements 3. Chapter 17.36, Design Standards '" Section 17.36.020, Streets '" Section 17.36.040, Existing Streets '" Section 17.36.050, Continuation of Streets '" Section 17.36.060, Minimum Right of Way and Roadway Width '" Section 17.36.080, Future Extension of Streets '" Section 17.36.120, Street Names ,. Section 17.36.130, Sidewalks ,. Section 17.36.140, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Requirements ,. Section 17.36.150, Blocks '" Section 17.36.160, Easements '" Section 17.36.170, Lots -Size and Shape ,. Section 17.36.180, Frontage '" Section 17.36.260, Fire Hazards '" Section 17.36.280, Water and Sewer Lines ,. Section 17.36.300, Public Water System 4. Chapter 17.44, Park Development ,. Section 17.44.010, Dedication of Land ,. Section 17.44.020, Fee in Lieu of Dedication 5. Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications '" Section 17.48.160, Road Development Requirements -Standards B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings .. Section 22.24.140, Continuances and Record Extensions C. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 2 1. ORS Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions * ORS 92.090, Approval of Subdivision Plat Names II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property is identified as Tax Lots 1400 and 1402 on Assessor's Map 18-11-22DC. The property is located adjacent to the existing Inn of the Seventh Mountain (Seventh Mountain) and Widgi Creek resorts along the Cascade Lakes Highway (also known as Century Drive) approximately five miles southwest of Bend. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Resort Community Zone and Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek Residential District (SMWCR) and is also within the Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone associated with the Cascade Lakes Highway and the Deschutes River. The property is designated Resort Community on the Deschutes County comprehensive plan map. C. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 4.2 acres in size and undeveloped. It has varied topography consisting of level areas and higher rock outcrops, and has a vegetative cover of scattered ponderosa pine trees. native brush and grasses. There is an old unimproved road that traverses the property. The property previously was developed with the horse stables for the Seventh Mountain resort. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The subject property is located between the Seventh Mountain resort to the west, the 16th fairway of the Widgi Creek golf course to the north, the Points West Subdivision to the east, and the Elkai Woods townhomes to the south. The Seventh Mountain resort consists of approximately 240 condominium units, conference facilities, two swimming pools, a restaurant and an ice skating rink. Widgi Creek consists of an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse and restaurant, together with residential units including single-family dwellings and townhomes. The Points West Subdivision consists of 64 zero-lot line residential lots. All of these developments are zoned SMWCR and are located between the Deschutes River and Cascade Lakes Highway. Land farther south consists of vacant parcels owned by the Seventh Mountain Association of Unit Owners (AUO) zoned and designated Resort Community, and federal land owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service and zoned Forest (F-1). E. Land Use History: The Seventh MountainlWidgi CreeklElkai Woods developments have a long land use history dating back to at least 1983 when the original land use approval for the Widgi Creek development was approved (Z-83-7, MP-83-1, CU-83-107).1 With respect to the subject property, in 2005 the applicant obtained a text amendment to Title 18 to expressly allow the development of condominiums and zero-lot-line subdivisions within the Resort Community Zone (Ordinance No. 2005-041). The applicant's burden of proof states in relevant part: "The subject properly is the former site of the horse stables and various utility facilities for the Inn of the Seventh Mountain resorl. In September of 2006, Deschutes County approved a two phase plan for the subject properly that would create a 64-lot subdivision (Phase 1) and a 42-unit condominium I The record indicates that when the master plan was approved in 1983 the land subject to that approval was a part of the Seventh Mountain resort. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 3 resort (Phase 2) through County Files TP-06-968, SP-06-13 and LM-06-34. The plat for Phase 1, known as POINTS WEST, has been recorded. In pursuing Phase 2, the Applicants encountered two challenges. First, the planned resort facility buildings, comprised of 42 unit condominiums, had become cost prohibitive due to the economic recession, particularly financing contingencies and insurance costs. Second, the market for the vacation rentals had changed dramatically since the initial time the project was planned c;md approved. Smaller detached and common wall units have not experienced as significant of a decline in sales locally or nationally. Due to this, the Applicant submitted a new Tentative Plat and Site Plan application along with a modification to the original approval to establish a 26-unit zero lot line subdivision. This request was approved under Deschutes County Land Use File TP-09-1009, SP-09-8 and LM-09-4 and extended underE-11 6. However, because the land use approval expired, the Applicant is once again requesting approval for the Phase 2 development. " The staff report notes the 2006 decision approving the applicant's condominium project was not appealed but the project never was constructed. The record indicates the 2009 approval also was not appealed but that approval expired. The applicant's current proposal is for tentative plan, site plan and LM site plan approval for development of a 24-lot zero-lot-line subdivision very similar to the 26-lot zero-lot-line subdivision approved in 2009. F. Procedural History: The tentative plan, site plan and LM site plan applications were submitted on April 4, 2014 and were accepted by the county as complete on May 5, 2014. Therefore, the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision would have expired on October 2,2014. A public hearing on the applications was held on July 1,2014. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through July 22, 2014, and allowed the applicant through July 29, 2014 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The record closed on that date. Because the applicant agreed to extend the written record from July 1 through July 29, 2014, under Section 22.24.140 of the Development Procedures Ordinance, the 150-day period was extended for 28 days and now expires on October 30,2014. As of the date of this decision there remain 31 days in the extended 150-day period. G. Proposal: The applicant requests tentative plan approval for the Mile Post One Subdivision consisting of 24 zero-lot line lots, as well as site plan and landscape management approval for the proposed two-story dwellings on the lots. Each dwelling unit would include a two-car garage. The lots would have access from Cascade Lakes Highway, a designated county arterial road, via Chipper Road, a 28-foot-wide private road platted in the adjacent Points West Subdivision, and a new unnamed 24-foot-wide private loop road in the subdivision that would connect to Chipper Road. Domestic water would be provided from the existing Seventh Mountain water system, and sewage disposal would be provided through extension of and connection to the existing Bend sewer system. H. Public Agency Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Road Department (road department) and Senior Transportation Planner; the City of Bend Fire Department; the Oregon Health Division; the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (Parks and Recreation); and Pacific Power. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 3-4 of the staff report and are included in the record. The following agencies did not respond to the request for comments: the Deschutes County Assessor; TP-14-1 024/8 P-14-8/LM-14-17. Arrowood Page 4 the City of Bend Public Works Department; the Bend-LaPine School District; the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOn; the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); the Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-District 11; Cascade Natural Gas; Century Link; and Bend Broadband. I. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applications and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 250 feet of the subject property. The record indicates these notices were mailed to the owners of 51 tax lots. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the county had received 43 letters from the public in response to these notices. In addition, nine members of the public testified at the public hearing. Public comments are addressed in the findings below. J. Lot of Record: The staff report indicates the county recognizes the two tax lots comprising the subject property as a single legal lot of record. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Title 18 ofthe Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance RESORT COMMUNITY ZONE STANDARDS 1. Chapter 18.110, Resort Community Zone a. Section 18.110.010, Purpose The purpose of the Resort Community Zone is to provide standards and review procedures for development in the communities of Black Butte Ranch and the Inn of the Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any Resort Community that is planned pursuant to OAR 660 Division 22. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: In 1997 the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted Division 22 of its administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660) to establish statewide policies and procedures for planning and zoning of "unincorporated communities." OAR 660-22-0010 included within "unincorporated communities" the category of "resort community," defined as "an unincorporated community that was established primarily for and continues to be used primarily for recreation and resort purposes." In 1998, as part of its required ·periodic review," the county began the "unincorporated community planning project" for the Seventh Mountain and Widgi Creek resorts in order to conform them with LCDC's "unincorporated community" administrative rules. In December of 2001 the county adopted Ordinance No. 2001-48. effective March 13, 2002, amending Title 18 to adopt new definitions, to take exceptions to the applicable statewide land use planning goals for both the Black Butte Ranch and Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek resorts, to adopt the Resort Community Zone through Chapter 18.110, and to adopt new zoning and comprehensive plan maps for the Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek resorts to include them within the Resort Community Zone and plan designation in general, and the SMWCR Zone in particular. The record indicates these amendments subsequently were acknowledged by LCDC. Copies of Ordinance No. 2001-48 and its supporting findings (Exhibit "H") are included in this record. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood PageS The record also includes considerable evidence and argument concerning the relationship between the provisions of the Resort Community Zone and previous land use approvals for the Widgi Creek resort -particularly the 1983 master plan approval which established limits on the number of dwelling units within Widgi Creek. The applicant's attorney Tia Lewis acknowledged at the public hearing that a portion of the subject property -what she called a "sliver of land" -falls within the approximately 237 acres of land covered by the Seventh Mountain (now Widgi Creek) master plan approved in 1983 and amended several times in the intervening years. Based on the Hearings Officer's examination of the official county maps in this record for the subject property, the Points West Subdivision, and surrounding land in the Seventh Mountain and Widgi Creek resorts, I find an area of land in the northern portion of the subject property (Tax Lot 1402), as well as an area of land in the northern portion of the adjacent Points West Subdivision, were part of the property covered by the Widgi Creek master plan. This land consists of approximately 2 acres along the northern boundaries of Lots 1 through 8 of the Points West Subdivision and Lots 1-10 in the proposed Mile Post One Subdivision. Some opponents argue the Widgi Creek master plan forbids any residential development on the subject property, or at the very least on that portion of the property included within the Widgi Creek master planned area. The Hearings Officer finds a similar argument was considered and rejected by former Hearings Officer Ann Briggs in her 2006 decision approving the applicant's original development plan for the subject property and the adjacent POints West Subdivision (TP-06-968, SP-06-13, LM-06-34). In that decision Hearings Officer Briggs noted the subject property specifically Tax Lot 14002 --included land within the Widgi Creek resort. Opponents in that case argued that land could not be developed because it was designated common area and/or open space on theWidgi Creek master plan,and therefore must remain undeveloped under a resort community comprehensive plan policy. Hearings Officer Briggs disagreed, finding the land at issue was not designated common area or open space. She went on to make the following findings: "The findings adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in support of the amendments regarding the InnlWidgi Creek resort community [Exhibit "H" to Ordinance No. 2001-048)J contemplate additional residential development within the area of the subject property, specifically 8-9 acres near the rim rock and the former sewage treatment facilities. Those areas appear to be included within the subject property's boundaries. Therefore. it is not inconceivable that areas the neighbors assumed would remain undeveloped would be built upon at some point. Here, the evidence supports a finding that only those areas that were specifically identified as open space or common area on the Widgi Creek plat are subject to that portion of the policy. The subject property does not include any areas subject to those designations. In addition, the language of the policy, which requires that 'developed golf courses' be retained, implies that undeveloped portions of golf courses may, in some circumstances, be developed." (Underscored emphasis added.) In other words, Hearings Officer Briggs concluded that in the absence of an open space or common area designation for the portion of the subject property and the Points West Subdivision within the Widgi Creek master planned area, that property was assumed to be -and was - available for residential development. The record indicates Hearings Officer Briggs' decision was not appealed and therefore controls on the question of whether the portion of the subject property within the Widgi Creek master planned area may be developed with dwellings. 2 The Hearings Officer is aware that Tax Lot 1402, which appears to comprise the portion of the subject property located within the Widgi Creek master planned area -was segregated from Tax Lot 1400 in 2010 at the applicant's request. TP-14-1024/SP-14-S/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 6 Most opponents stated they do not object to the applicant's proposed development per se, but are concerned about whether and to what extent the Widgi Creek master plan is still applicable to Widgi Creek resort in light of the applicant's proposal and following language at page 5 of the staff report addressing public comments: "Joint letter from the presidents of the Elkai Woods Homeowners Association, and the Elkai Woods Fractional Homeowners Association. 1) The number of additional lots for townhomes that can be located within SMGVJWC has been exceeded by the number of Points West lots already platted; 2) Portions of 8 platted Points West townhome lots and portions of the lots being proposed under the current application are located in SMGVJWC in an area outside the area designated for townhomes/condominiums within SMGVJWC; 3) How much of the required minimum 65% open space remains within SMGVJWC; 4) Compliance with requirements related to the Cascade Lakes Highway/ Century Drive being a scenic highway and a designated landscape management road. Staff believes that the master plan (file no. MP-83-1/CU-83-107) that was submitted for what became Widgi Creek/Seventh Mountain Golf Village/Elka; Woods has been replaced with Chapter 18.110 of the County Code. The master plan dates back to 1983 and has been amended several times. The County adopted ordinance 2001-048 to be in compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules Division 22, designating this development as a Resort Community. Staff believes that the master plan no longer applies, and the 65% open space standard for the original master plan would not apply to the proposed development. Additionally, the majority of the area proposed for the 24-lot zero lot line subdivision is outside the master plan area from the 1983 approval. The applicant has submitted a landscape management application as required under DCC Chapter 18.84. Staff also notes that there have been two somewhat recent land use decisions involving the subject property. They are: TP-06-9681SP-06-131LM-06-34, a tentative plat. site plan and landscape management site plan review for a 64-/ot subdivision (which is now platted as the Points West subdivision). and a 42-unit resort condominiums project. The resort condominiums have never been constructed. The 42-unit condominium project was replaced with a 26-/01 zero lot line subdivision approved under application nos. TP-09-1009/SP-09-81LM-09-4. That approval expired. The master plan referenced above was not addressed in either one of these decisions. Staff believes that this may be due to the inapplicability of the master plan to the proposals, since the original master plan approval was replaced by the adoption of Chapter 18.110 of Title 18. Staff reviewed Exhibit 'H'to Ordinances 2001-04712001-048, which adopted new comprehensive plan designations and also Chapter 18.110, Resort Communities, for both Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the Seventh MountainJWidgi Creek. There is no reference in either ordinance to the master plan approval for the InnlWidgi. Staff has reviewed these ordinances and Exhibit 'H.' There is a reference on page 29 of Exhibit H which states: 'However, the 82-acre exception area that would be included in the Ranch boundary and an internal piece of land encompassing approximately 8-9 buildable acres at InnJWidgi both offer significant potential for some additional development. ' (emphasis added). Staff believes that the 'internal piece of land' referenced in Exhibit H is referring to the Points West subdivision, as well as the proposed Mile Post One zero lot line subdivision. The final plat for Points TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 7 West lists the proposed 24-unit properly as Tract J!\ Future Development Site. 1 This indicates to staff that the County recognized the possibility of development for this site." (Underscored emphasis in original; bold emphasis added.) In other words, staff drew the same conclusion from the 2001 findings of the Board of County Commissioners (board) as Hearings Officer Briggs did in 2006 -i.e., when the Resort Community Zone was adopted, the county contemplated the undeveloped subject property, including the portion included in the Widgi Creek resort, would be available for future residential development. And as staff noted, the board's findings made no reference to the Widgi Creek master plan. Nor did Ordinance No. 2001-048 adopting the Resort Community Zone contain a "savings clause" stating its adoption did not affect any existing land use approvals for the Black Butte Ranch or Seventh MountainMfidgi Creek resorts. The board has included such clauses in other ordinances amending the zoning regulations. For example, Section 18.08.020 states the adoption of Title 18 did not abrogate or impair existing zoning permits such as preliminary plat approvals and conditional use permits. The lack of a savings clause in Ordinance No. 2001-048 suggests the board intended the new Resort Community Zone to apply to future development of undeveloped land in the Black Butte Ranch and Seventh MountainJWidgi Creek resorts. That intent is further demonstrated in the clearly stated purpose of the Resort Community Zone in Section 18.110.010 -Le., "to provide standards and review procedures for development in the * * * Inn of the Seventh MountainMfidgi Creek" --and the board's failure to refer to the Widgi Creek master plan in its findings in support of the ordinance adopting the Resort Community Zone. In this context, the Hearings Officer finds staff's reading of the Resort Community Zone to supersede the Widgi Creek master plan for future development of undeveloped land is not unreasonable. Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the board's adoption of the Resort Community Zone provide further explanation of the board's apparent decision that the Widgi Creek master plan would not apply to future development on undeveloped within Widgi Creek. As discussed above, the county was required to take goal exceptions, and adopt development regulations, for the Black Butte Ranch and Seventh MountainJWidgi Creek resorts in order to comply with LCDC's admioistrative rules governing unincorporated communities. The board's findings in support of Ordinance No. 2001-048 adopting the Resort Community Zone indicate the board understood that virtually all land within both resorts had been fully developed pursuant to previous land use decisions (or development predating county land use regulations), and consequently there was no need to make reference to those previous decisions in general, or the Widgi Creek master plan in particular. In other words, the board intended that future residential development of any remaining small pockets of undeveloped land within those two resorts would be subject to the Resort Community Zone provisions. For these reasons, I find the applicant's proposal is not subject to the Widgi Creek master plan. Even assuming for purposes of argument that the Widgi Creek master plan does apply to the applicant's proposal, the Hearings Officer finds opponents' objections on that basis lack merit. Opponents note the 1983 decision approving the master plan established the following limitations on residential units within what became the Widgi Creek resort: (1) 210 total residential units; (2) 95 single-family residential lots; and (3) 120 condominium units. The record indicates subsequent amendments to the master plan modified the maximum number of single-family dwellings and condominiums/townhomes to 107 and 103, respectively. The record indicates 86 condominium/townhome units have been established in the Elkai Woods development within Widgi Creek. Therefore, opponents assert there remained authorization for only 17 more townhomes within the Widgi Creek master planned area, and because the Points West Subdivision was approved with 8 town home lots located partially within the Widgi Creek master planned area, the applicant's proposal to develop 10 townhomes on the subject property within the Widgi Creek TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17. Arrowood Page 8 master planned area exceeds the maximum number of town homes -regardless of what the Resort Community Zone permits. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, two previous land use decisions approved residential development by the applicant on the subject property: (1) the 2006 decision by Hearings Officer Briggs granting tentative plan and site plan approval for 42 condominiums and a 64-lot zero-lot-line subdivision; and (2) the 2009 administrative decision granting tentative plan and site plan approval for 42 condominiums and a 26-lot zero-lot-line subdivision. In both cases, according to opponents' calculations the applicant's proposals would have exceeded the townhome limitations in the Widgi Creek master plan. However, it appears from this record that although they could have done so, the Widgi Creek and Elkai Woods homeowners' associations and the neighboring property owners who were parties to those previous proceedings did not raise any objection to the proposed developments on the basis of the town home limitations in the Widgi Creek master plan. The Hearings Officer finds the homeowners' associations' and other opponents' claims that approval of the Points West Lots 1-8 was subject to the Widgi Creek master plan townhome unit limits, and that under the master plan those lots must be counted against the applicant's proposal, amounts to an improper collateral attack in this proceeding on the 2006 and 2009 decisions. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal to establish a 24-lot zero-lot-line subdivision and townhomes on undeveloped land partially located within the Widgi Creek resort is subject to the provisions of the Resort Community Zone and not to the Widgi Creek resort master plan. a. Section 18.110.030, Widgi Creek Residential District The following uses and their accessory uses are pennitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.110.060: A. Single-family dwelling. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to develop a 24-lot zero-lot-line subdivision with single-family dwellings in both attached and detached structures. Under Section 18.110.060(J) addressed in the findings below. a zero-lot-line subdivision for single-family residences is permitted outright in the Resort Community Zone/Residential District. b. Section 18.110.060, Development Standards A. Setbacks. 1. Single-Family Dwelling. The following setbacks shall be maintained for single-family dwellings and accessory uses on residential parcels: * * * B. Other Setbacks. The following setbacks shall be maintained for buildings and structures, based on the applicable provision(s) of DCC Title 18: 1. Solar Setback. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar access setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180 for south roof protection. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 9 FINDINGS: Under Section 18.110.060(J)(2), addressed in the findings below, the proposed dwellings on zero-lot-line lots are not subject to the front, side and rear year setbacks or the solar setback, and therefore the standards in these paragraphs do not apply. 2. Waterway Setback. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams and lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the main stem of the Deschutes River adjacent to the subject property is located at least 1,250 feet from the subject property's nearest boundary, but that a smaller channel of the river is located approximately 650 feet from the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. 3. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or Deschutes County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDINGS: The Building Division did not identify any additional setbacks required by the building code. 4. Rimrock Setbacks. Setbacks from rimrocks shall be maintained as provided in DCC 18.84 or DCC 18.116.160, whichever is applicable. FINDINGS: The Hearing Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the record indicates there is no rimrock as defined in Section 18.04.030 on or adjacent to the subject property. 5. Scenic Waterway. The applicable provisiorrs in DCC 18.84 shall be met. FINDINGS: The proposed Mile Post One Subdivision would be located entirely within the boundary of the Deschutes River State Scenic Waterway. Parks and Recreation regulates development within scenic waterway boundaries. In its comments on the applicant's proposal) Parks and Recreation stated the applicant's proposal is subject to its scenic waterway review. The applicant's burden of proof states Parks and Recreation previously approved the 26-lot zero-lot-line subdivision approved by the county in 2009 and that the applicant will apply for a "modified approval" for its new proposal. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain scenic waterway review and approval from the Parks and Recreation, and to provide to the Planning Division written documentation of that approval, before obtaining building permits for any structure. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.84 is addressed in the findings below. 6. Floodplain. The applicable provisions in DCC 18.96 shall be met. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the proposed development is not within the designated Deschutes River floodplain. C. Building Height. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 10 1. Resort Facility and Resort Utility Building. No resort facility or resort utility building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 40 feet, or 30 feet when the provisions in DCC 18.84.080 are applicable, unless a variance for a greater height is approved. For the purposes of DCC 18.110.060(C}(1} an application for a height variance may be granted provided the Planning Director or Hearings Body makes only the following findings: 'If 'If 'If FINDINGS: The subject property and proposed development are located within the LM Zone associated with the Deschutes River and Cascade Lakes Highway. The applicants submitted an application for LM site plan review, and therefore the design review standards in Section 18.84.080 are applicable. Accordingly, the proposed dwellings are limited to 30 feet in height unless a height exception for a greater height is requested and approved. However, because the subject property is located entirely within the LM Zone, no exception to the 30-foot maximum height is allowed under Section 18.120.040(C). 2. All Other Buildings. No building or structure used for purposes other than a resort facility or resort utility. including a single-family dwelling, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as provided by DCC 18.120.040. FINDINGS: The applicant does not propose any buildings or structures other than the dwellings. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. 3. Scenic Waterway. The applicable provisions in DCC 18.84 shall be met. FINDINGS: The proposed Mile Post One Subdivision would be located entirely within the state scenic waterway for the Deschutes River and therefore the applicable provisions of 18.84 must be satisfied. Compliance with that chapter is discussed in the findings below. D. Lot Coverage. 1. Single-family dwelling. The maximum lot coverage by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures shall be 40 percent of the total lot. FINDINGS: Under Section 18.110.060(J)(2), discussed below, zero-lot-line lots are not subject to these lot coverage provisions. 2. All Other Buildings. The maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures used for purposes other than a single-family dwelling shall be determined by the spatial requirements for yard setbacks, landscaping, parking and utilities. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 11 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant does not propose any buildings other than single-family dwellings. E. Off-Street Parking and Loading. 1. Single-Family Dwelling. Off-street parking shall be provided for a minimum of two motor vehicles per dwelling. 2. All Other Uses. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the requirements of Dee 18.116. FINDINGS: The applicant's submitted site plan shows each of the 24 proposed dwellings will have a two-car garage as well as space adjacent to the garage that is large enough for at least two parking spaces, therefore providing a total of four off-street parking spaces for each dwelling which satisfies this criterion. No other uses are proposed for the lots. F. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be installed in conformance with DeC 15.10. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to install any outdoor lighting in conformance with the county's outdoor lighting standards in Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code. G. Excavation, Grading and Fill and Removal. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or lake, or in a wetland shall be subject to DeC 18.128.040(W), unless the activity meets the exception provisions in DeC 18.120.050. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicants do not propose excavation, grading or fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or lake or in a wetland. H. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DeC 15.08. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states its proposal does not include any signs or outdoor advertising "which would be visible from the river." As discussed in the findings below, no signs or outdoor advertising visible from the river is permitted. However, to assure compliance with this criterion for any signs that are not visible from the river, the Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to install any such signs in conformance with the sign code in Chapter 15.08 of the Deschutes County Code. I. Lot Requirements. 1. Single-Family Dwelling. A new lot for a single-family dwelling served by a community or public sewerage system shall have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet and a minimum average width of 60 feet, except that a corner lot shall have a minimum average width of 70 feet. A new lot for a single-family dwelling served by an on site septic system shall have a minimum area of 22,000 square feet and a minimum average width of 100 feet. Any new residential lot shall have a minimum width at the TP-14-1 024/SP-14-B/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 12 I I I I street of 50 feet, except for a lot on a cul-de-sac, in which case the minimum width shall be 30 feel ! FINDINGS: Under Section 18.110.060(J)(2), discussed below, the proposed zero-lot-lineI subdivision is not subject to the lot requirements in this subsection. I 2. All Other Uses. Every lot created for purposes other than residential use shall have dimensions for lot area, width and depth necessary for yard setbacks, landscaping, parking and utilities for the proposed use. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant does not propose any uses other than dwellings. J. Land Divisions 1. General. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained herein or In other parts of the County Code, roads within the Resort Community Zone may be private roads and new lots or parcels may be created that have access from, and frontage on, private roads only. These roads must meet the private road standards of DCC Title 17, and are not subject to public road standards of DCC Title 17. An agreement acceptable to the County Road Department and County Legal Counsel shall be required for the maintenance of new private roads. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes that all lots in the Mile Post One Subdivision will have access via a private loop road connecting to Chipper Road which is a private road created through the platting of the Points West Subdivision. The applicant has requested that it be allowed to construct the new private loop road with 24 feet of pavement, restricting parking to only one side of the road, and providing mUlti-use paths within the subdivision for-pedestrians and bicycles. As discussed in the findings below under Title 17, Table "An permits private local roads in rural areas to have 24 feet of pavement where, as here, the projected traffic volume is low and multi-use paths are provided. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed private subdivision road satisfies this criterion. The applicant's burden of proof states the applicant will record covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) to ensure continued maintenance of the private road. A draft of the CC&Rs is included in the record as Exhibit "B" to the applicant's burden of proof. Compliance with the private road standards in Title 17 is addressed in the findings below. To assure compliance with the criteria in this subsection, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit to Deschutes County Legal Counsel for its review and approval the proposed CC&Rs and/or any agreement for maintenance of the new private road for the Mile Post One Subdivision prior to submitting the final subdivision plat for approval. 2. Zero Lot Line Subdivision. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained herein, zero lot line subdivisions for single-family residences shall be allowed in the Resort Community Zone in accordance with the provisions of DCC Chapter 17.20. Zero lot line subdivisions are not subject to the setback provisions of 18.110.060(A), solar setback standards of TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 13 18.110.060(8)(1), lot coverage provisions of 18.110.060(D) or lot requirements of 18.110.060(1)(1). FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the proposed zero-lot-line subdivision is not subject to the setback, solar setback or lot requirements applicable to other subdivisions in the Resort Community Zone. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval set forth above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy all applicable standards in the Resort Community Zone. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT ZONE STANDARDS 2. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) a. Section 18.84.020, Application of Provisions The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall also apply to all areas within the boundaries of a State scenic waterway or Federal wild and scenic river corridor and all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. This distance specified above shall be measured horizontally from the centerline of designated landscape management roadways or from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape management river or stream. The limitations In DCC 18.84.020 shall not unduly restrict accepted agricultural practices. FINDINGS: The entire subject property is located within the landscape management corridors for the Deschutes River and the Cascade Lakes Highway, and therefore the LM Zone provisions apply to the applicant's proposal. b. Section 18.84.030, Uses Permitted Outright Uses permitted in the underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined shall be permitted in the LM Zone, subject to the prOVisions in DCC 18.84. FINDINGS: Single-family dwellings are a use permitted outright in the SMWCR Zone, and therefore they also are permitted in the LM Zone. c. Section 18.84.050, Use Limitations A. Any new structure or substantial alteration of a structure requiring a building permit, or an agricultural structure, within an LM Zone shall obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to construction. As used in DCC 18.84 substantial alteration consists of an alteration which exceeds 25 percent in the size or 25 percent of the assessed value of the structure. TP-14-1 024/S P -14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 14 B. Structures which are not visible from the designated roadway, river or stream and which are assured of remaining not visible because of vegetation, topography or existing development are exempt from the provisions of Dee 18.84.080 (Design Review Standards) and Dee 18.84.090 (Setbacks). An applicant for site plan review in the LM Zone shall conform with the provisions of Dee 18.84, or may submit evidence that the proposed structure will not be visible from the designated road, river or stream. Structures not visible from the designated road, river or stream must meet setback standards of the underlying zone. FINDINGS: The applicant's proposal includes new structures for dwellings on 24 lots. The staff report states that based on staffs site visit observations the proposed cottages would not be visible from the Deschutes River, but that some of the dwellings may be visible from the Cascade Lakes Highway. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the LM Zone design review standards are applicable to the applicant's proposal. d. Section 18.84.080, Design Review Standards A. Except as necessary for construction of access roads, building pads, septic drainfields, public utility easements, parking areas, etc., the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the designated road, river or stream shall be retained. The commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act or agricultural use ofthe land. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states with respect to this criterion: "Visibility from Century Drive will be minimal. At its closest point the project is located over 450 feet from Century Drive and is screened by substantial vegetation. There are large stands of mature ponderosas and junipers along the roadway and severa/landscape berms between the roadway and the Widgi Creek golf course. At the southern edge of the 1flh fairway, there are additional stands of mature ponderosas and junipers between the golf course and the subject property. Except as necessary for the construction infrastructure and building pads, the Applicant intends to retain all tree and shrub cover screening the development from Century Drive." At the public hearing opponents testified that a number of large pine trees had been removed from areas within the Widgi Creek golf course property resulting in a reduction in the amount of vegetative screening between the subject property and Cascade Lakes Highway. Opponents expressed concern that further planned tree removal would decrease screening from the highway. The Hearings Officer understands opponents' concerns. However, I lack authority to require the retention of screening vegetation located on land outside the subject property. Nevertheless. I can require that as a condition of approval the applicant retain all existing screening vegetation not required to be removed for construction. Opponents also question the number and location of trees and other vegetation to be removed for construction. The applicant's submitted site plan does not show vegetation to be removed. I find that to assure compliance with this criterion the applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan showing both the location of the trees to be removed and the location of the additional trees required to be planted as discussed in the findings below. TP-14-1024/SP-14-S/LM-14-17. Arrowood Page 15 The staff report recommends the applicant be required as a condition of approval to add vegetative screening by planting new evergreen trees within open areas on the subject property abutting the Widgi Creek 16th fairway -i.e., on proposed Lots 4,5.6, 7. 8 and 9. Specifically staff recommends three new evergreen trees be planted on each lot no more than 30 feet apart. The Hearings Officer finds that Paragraph (H) of this section, discussed below, authorizes me to require such introduced landscaping for screening. Opponents argued staffs proposed tree-planting condition is too vague to assure adequate screening from the highway. I agree with opponents that the proposed condition of approval is not sufficiently specific because it does not identify the size of introduced trees at the time of planting. Opponent Robert Felder asserted in his written testimony that the trees should be 20 to 25 feet tall in order to assure the proposed two-story dwellings are fully screened from the highway. The Hearings Officer disagrees. Given the significant distance several hundred feet -between the nearest proposed dwellings and the highway, and the fact that other structures within the Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek resorts are visible from the highway, I find it is not reasonable to require the applicant to fully screen the proposed dwellings with introduced trees. Rather, I find the purpose of a tree planting requirement is to supplement the existing screening vegetation. Nothing in this section requires the applicant to completely obscure the proposed dwellings from Cascades Lakes Highway. Accordingly, I find it is reasonable to require the applicant to plan evergreen trees that are at least 10 feet tall at the time of planting, and that are of species that will reach at least 30 feet in height at maturity. The Hearings Officer finds that with imposition of the conditions of approval described above the applicant's proposal will satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. B. It is recommended that new structures and additions to existing structures be finished in muted earth tones that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site. C. No large areas, including roofs, shall be finished with white, bright or reflective materials. Metal roofing material is permitted ...•. if it is non-reflective and of a color which blends with thEf surrounding vegetation and landscape. This SUbsection shall not apply to attached additions to structures lawfully in existence on April 8, 1992, unless substantial improvement to the roof of the existing structure occurs. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states that the proposed cottage-style dwellings will have exterior finishes in muted earth tones and using timber and wood materials that will blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation. The burden of proof also states the roofs will be constructed of non-reflective material consisting of brown. black or gray composite shingles. The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to provide to the Planning Division, prior to issuance of any construction permits for the dwellings, samples of the exterior finishes and colors and roofing materials demonstrating compliance with this criterion. D. Subject to applicable rimrock setback requirements or rimrock setback exception standards in Section 18.84.090, all structures shall be sited to take advantage of existing vegetation, trees and topographic features in order to reduce visual impact as seen from the designated road, river or stream. FINDINGS: As noted above, there is no rimrock on or adjacent to the subject property. In addition, the record indicates none of the proposed dwellings would be visible from the Deschutes River. As TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 16 I f j discussed in the findings of fact above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required to retain all existing screening vegetation not required to be removed for construction, and to plant new trees Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in order to supplement the existing vegetative screening from the Cascade Lakes Highway. I find that with imposition of these conditions of approval the applicant's proposal will satisfy this criterion. E. Structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height measured from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the road, river or stream. Within the LM zone along a state scenic watelWay or federal wild and scenic. river, the height of a structure shall include chimneys, antennas, flag poles or other projections from the roof of the structure. This section shall not apply to agricultural structures located at least 50 feet from a rimrock. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the proposed two-story dwellings would not exceed 30 feet in height as measured from the natural grade on the side facing Century Drive or the Deschutes River. There is no rimrock on the subject property, and the record indicates no dwelling would be visible from the Deschutes River. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required to obtain scenic waterway review from Parks and Recreation before obtaining building permits for any structures. For these reasons, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. F. New residential or commercial driveway access to designated landscape management roads shall be consolidated wherever possible. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because no new access to Cascade Lakes Highway is proposed. Rather, the applicant proposes to use the eXisting Seventh Mountain access driveway. G. New exterior lighting, including security lighting, shall be sited and shielded so that it is directed downward and is not directly visible from the designated road, river or stream. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install any exterior lighting in compliance with the county's outdoor lighting ordinance. I find the applicant also will be required as a condition of approval to install exterior lighting that is shielded and directed downward so it is not visible from either Cascade Lakes Highway or the Deschutes River. H. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the establishment of introduced landscape material to screen the development, assure compatibility with existing vegetation, reduce glare, direct automobile and pedestrian circulation or enhance the overall appearance of the development while not interfering with the views of oncoming traffic at access points of views of mountains, forests and other open and scenic areas as seen from the deSignated landscape management road, river or stream. Use of native species shall be encouraged. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to plant additional TP-14-1 024/SP-14-B/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 17 evergreen trees along the northern boundary of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to supplement existing vegetative screening of the dwellings on those lots from Cascade Lakes Highway. I. No signs or other forms of outdoor advertising that are visible from a designated landscape management river or stream shall be permitted. Property protection signs (no trespassing, no hunting, etc.) are permitted. FINDINGS: The applicant has not proposed any signs or other forms of outdoor advertising which would be visible from the Deschutes River and therefore the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable. J. A conservation easement as defined in section 18.04.280 "Conservation Easement" and specified in section 18.116.220 shall be required as a condition of approval for all landscape management site plans involving property adjacent to the Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Squaw Creek and Tumalo Creek. Conservation easements required as a condition of landscape management site plans shall not require public access. FINDINGS: The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this criterion is not applicable because the subject property is not adjacent to the Deschutes River. e. Section 18.84.090, Setbacks * * * B. Road Setbacks. All new structures or additions to existing structures on lots frolJting a designated landscape management road shall be set back at least 100 feet from the edge of the deSignated road unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that: FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the subject property does not front on a landscape management road but rather is located several hundred feet from the Cascade Lakes Highway. C. River and Stream Setbacks. All new structures or additions to existing structures shall be set back 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of designated streams and rivers or obtain a setback exception in accordance with DCC 18.120.030. For the purpose of DeC 18.84.090, decks are considered part of a structure and must conform with the setback requirement. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the proposed dwellings would be located over 600 feet from the closest point of the Deschutes River, therefore complying with this criterion. The applicant does not propose anyon-site sewage disposal. f. 18.84.095, Scenic Waterways TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 18 Approval of all structures in a State Scenic Waterway shall be conditioned upon receipt of approval of the State Parks Department. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain scenic waterway review from Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the dwellings. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy all applicable standards in the LM Zone. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 3. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions a. Section 18.116.030, Off-Street Parking and Loading A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by this title. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found there is space on each proposed lot for at least four off-street parking places per dwelling. B. Off-Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed dwellings do not require a loading berth. C. Off-street parking. Off street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.16.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of spaces required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: * * * 1. Residential. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 19 Use Requirements One, two dwellings and three family 2 spaces per dwelling unit FINDINGS: The applicant's submitted site plans show each lot will provide sufficient space for at least four off-street parking spaces for each dwelling -two in the garage and two on the driveway -therefore satisfying this criterion. b. Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under this title for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of this section. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered FINDINGS: The staff report concludes, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that because each proposed dwelling is required to have fewer than 'five off-street parking spaces no bicycle parking spaces are required. c. Section 18.116.180, Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access FINDINGS: As discussed above, under Section 18.110.060(J)(2) the dwellings in the proposed zero-lot-line subdivision are not subject to solar setbacks. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy all applicable criteria in the supplementary provisions in this chapter. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 4. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review 1. Section 18.124.030, Approval Required A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DeC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 20 B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple-family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). 7. Non-commercial wind energy system generating greater than 15 to 100 kW of electricity. C. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall not apply to uses involving the stabling and training of equine in the EFU zone, noncommercial stables and horse events not requiring a conditional use permit. D. Noncompliance with a final approved site plan shall be a zoning ordinance violation. E. As a condition of approval of any action not included in DCC 18.124.030(B), the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require site plan approval prior to issuance of any permits. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that because Chapter 17.20 of the subdivision/partition ordinance states zero-lot-line subdivisions require site plan approval, the provisions of Chapter 18.124 apply. b. Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDINGS: The natural environment on the subject property consists of varying topography with relatively level areas and a vegetative cover of scattered ponderosa pine trees and native brush and grasses. The applicant's burden of proof states with respect to this criterion: "The proposed development as planned utilizes materials that will blend visually with the natural environment and will be aesthetically pleasing for the residents and TP-14-1024/SP-14-S/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 21 surrounding property owners. Attached hereto in Section IV are elevations of the cottages which will use muted earth tones, timbers and wood to create rustic and nonintrusive development that blends with the natural setting and the existing resort and adjacent Widgi Creek developments. The proposed cottages blend better with the natural environment than the approved condominium buildings as they require less excavation and less removal of the natural vegetation." The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to preserve and retain all existing vegetation that screens the proposed dwellings from the Cascade Lakes Highway, other than that required to be removed for construction, and to plant additional evergreen trees to provide additional screening. I also have found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit a landscape plan that shows the location and number of trees to be removed for construction as well as the location and number of trees required to be planted to supplement existing screening from Cascade Lakes Highway. The existing developed environment surrounding the subject property consists of the Seventh Mountain and Widgi Creek resorts including residential development in a variety of densities and styles, some of them similar to the dwellings proposed by the applicant. In comments on the applicant's proposal, Kristy Jassak representing Wyndham, the owner of several residential units in the Seventh Mountain resort, expressed concern about the construction and visual impacts on Seventh Mountain dwellings from development of the proposed subdivision. She requested that the applicant be required to construct some type of landscaping or earthen buffer between the subject property and the Seventh Mountain resort. In her July 1, 2014 memo, the applicant's attorney Tia Lewis stated the applicant "proposes to plant a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees in the area between Lots 1-3 and the Inn property to screen the developments from one another.» The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to provide this landscaping before the issuance of construction permits for any dwellings in the proposed subdivision, and to show this landscaping on the landscape plan required to be submitted by this decision. For these reasons, and with imposition of the condition of approval described above, the Hearings Officer find the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy this criterion. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states that "the proposal includes care in site and structural grading to preserve topographical features and landscaping to the greatest extent possible." The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as conditions of approval to preserve and retain all existing vegetation that screens the proposed dwellings from the Cascade Lakes Highway, except vegetation that must be removed for construction, to plant additional evergreen trees on certain lots in order to increase the amount of screening vegetation from Cascade Lakes Highway and the Seventh Mountain resort, and to submit a landscape plan showing the number and location of trees to be removed and to be planted. The applicant does not proposed to alter the existing topography beyond the grading required for dwelling and street construction. For these reasons, and with imposition of the above-described conditions of approval, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy this criterion. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 22 C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDINGS: The proposed development includes zero-lot-line lots developed with single-family dwellings served by the Seventh Mountain's water system and Bend's sewer system. Access to the dwellings will be from private roads improved to county road standards. As discussed in the findings below concerning street standards, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to provide a 24-foot-wide road within the subdivision, to prohibit parking on one side of the road, and to multi-use paths for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. As also discussed above, I have found the applicant's proposal includes sufficient space on each lot for at least four off-street parking spaces for each dwelling. Some opponents argued the applicant's proposal will not provide a safe environment because the proposed dwellings' proximity to the Widgi Creek golf course increases the possibility that errant golf balls will strike and injure people on these lots. The Hearings Officer understands opponents' concerns. Nevertheless, I find this issue exists at any golf course development where residences abut fairways. For example, the staff report notes there are over sixty townhomes within the Elkai \loods development that are in close proximity to the golf course fairways. I agree with staff that the proposed Mile Post One lots would be no more dangerous than other golf course lots in the surrounding area and throughout the county. It is reasonable to assume residents of such lots are aware of these risks when they purchase their lots. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) identified by the county during the building plan review and permitting process for the dwellings. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. FINDINGS: The applicants propose access to the dwellings from the Cascade Lakes Highway via Chipper Road, a private road within the Points West Subdivision, and a connecting private loop road within the Mile Post One Subdivision. The record indicates Chipper Road serves as one of the internal access roads in the Seventh Mountain resort. As discussed in the findings above, the land surrounding the subject property consists of the Seventh Mountain and Widgi Creek resorts which contain developed areas, landscaping and a golf course. The applicant's submitted tentative plan shows a secondary emergency access located between Lots 8 and 9 of the Points West Subdivision that connects to Elkai Woods Drive and currently serves the Points West and Elkai Woods Subdivisions. For these reasons. the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 23 FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states all surface water drainage will be contained on site through a system of drainage swales, retention/infiltration basins, drainage drywells, and catch basins. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that as long as the drainage system is installed in accordance with the design standards established by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), adverse impacts on adjacent properties will be prevented. I find the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install all surface drainage systems in conformance with the applicable DEQ design standards for such systems. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the only proposed features that fall within the listed facilities are the community mailboxes. The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant that these facilities will have minimal if any impact on the site and surrounding properties. The applicant's burden of proof does not address the location or appearance of refuse containers but simply states refuse cans or carts will-be emptied on'ce a week. I find the refuse/recycle carts likely will be kept within the garages of the proposed dwellings. However, if the applicant intends that the carts be stored outside the garages, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit a revision to its site plan showing where and how refuse carts will be stored between pick ups and how they will be screened. H. All above-ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to install all utilities underground except "standard above ground power transformers and standard franchise utility pedestals and facilities." However, the site plan does not identify the location of these proposed above-ground facilities. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit a revised site plan showing the location and design of these above-ground utility facilities and how they will be screened with vegetation or otherwise so that adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties are minimized. I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.) . . FINDINGS: Compliance with the standards in the Resort Community and LM Zones is addressed in the findings above. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install all exterior lighting in compliance with the outdoor lighting ordinance in Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code, and with fixtures that are shielded and downcast so direct light does not project off-site or onto the Deschutes River. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17. Arrowood Page 24 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation-related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. FINDINGS: The applicants propose access to the subdivision from Cascade Lakes Highway from an existing shared entrance driveway. Vehicles would travel via Chipper Road, an existing private road platted within the Points West Subdivision, to a new private road within the proposed subdivision that would connect to Chipper Road. In support of its proposal, the applicant submitted a transportation analysis (hereafter "traffic study") prepared by Kittelson & Associates and dated November 7,2008. This study is Exhibit "0" to the applicant's burden of proof. The record indicates this traffic study was prepared for the previous 26-lot zero-lot-line subdivision for which the 2009 approval expired, and was an update to a traffic study prepared in January of 2006 in support of the earlier condominium development that was not constructed. The 2006 traffic study predicted the original condominium development would generate 660 daily vehicle trips of which 60 would be p.m. peak hour trips. The 2006 study concluded the Seventh Mountain access driveway from Cascade Lakes Highway was at that time operating at acceptable levels of service and concluded that with the addition of traffic generated by the condominium development it would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The 2008 update to the 2006 traffic study concluded that with the addition of a greatly reduced number of daily and p.m. peak hour trips generated by fewer dwelling units (304 and 27, respectively) the Seventh Mountain driveway/Cascade Lakes Highway intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. In his April 22, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell stated the analysis and conclusions in the 2006 and 2008 traffic studies were not sufficient to support the applicant's current proposal and that an updated study would need to be submitted. In response, on May 162014 the applicant submitted another Kittelson traffic study dated May 16, 2014. The updated study found that the Cascade Lakes Highway/Seventh Mountain intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service. The study predicted that the proposed 24-lot zero-lot-line subdivision would generate 139 daily vehicle trips of which 12 would be p.m. peak hour trips. The study concluded that with the addition of this traffic the intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through 2020. The study also found there were no sight distance issues in either direction at the intersection and no changes to the intersection would be required to mitigate the minimal traffic impact from the proposed subdivision. In his May 20, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Peter Russell stated he had reviewed the updated traffic study and that he "agrees with the methodology, conclusions and recommendation" of the study_ Although OOOT was notified of the applicant's proposal because it manages the Cascade Lakes Highway, it did not submit any comments on the applicant's proposal. The Hearings Officer finds the lack of comment from OOOT indicates it has no concerns about the addition of subdivision traffic to the highway_ TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds access to the proposed subdivision will be adequate for the proposed use. c. Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments. 1. Private Areas. Each ground-level living unit in a residential development subject to site plan approval shall have an accessible outdoor private space of not less than 48 square feet in area. The area shall be enclosed, screened or otherwise designed to provide privacy for unit residents and their guests. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the proposed dwellings will have ground-level spaces with accessible private outdoor patios and yards in excess of 48 square feet in size. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required to provide these spaces as a condition of approval. 2. Shared Areas. Usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided for the shared use of residents and their guests in any apartment residential development, as follows: a. Units with one or two bedrooms: 200 square feet per unit. b. Units with three or more bedrooms: 300 square feet per unit FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant does not propose any apartment residential development. 3. Storage. In residential developments, convenient areas shall be provided for the storage of articles such as bicycles, barbecues, luggage, outdoor furniture, etc. These areas shall be entirely enclosed. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states each dwelling unit will have adequate storage within the dwelling (all over 1,600 square feet in size) and within each dwelling's two-car garage to accommodate the listed items. The Hearings Officer finds this storage will satisfy this criterion. B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval: a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 26 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B) (1) (a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas: FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant's proposal is for single-family dwellings and not a multi-family, commercial or industrial development. However, as discussed in the findings above, I have found the applicant will be required to plant additional screening vegetation and to submit a landscape plan showing the number and location of all introduced trees and all trees to be removed for construction. C. Nonmotorized Access. 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. FINDINGS: Compliance with the bicycle parking requirements is discussed in the findings above. As discussed there, the Hearings Officer has found that because only two off-street parking spaces are required for each proposed dwelling unit no bicycle parking is required. 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provide in new commercial, office and multi-family residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surface pedestrian walkways, and similar techniques. .. .. .. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant's proposal is for single-family dwellings and not a multi-family, commercial or industrial development. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy all applicable site plan approval criteria. SUBDIVISION STANDARDS B. Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance 1. Chapter 17.20, Zero Lot Line Subdivision a. Section 17.20.010, Requirements In addition to the general provisions for subdivision and partitioning set forth in DCC Title 17, any application for a zero lot line subdivision or partition shall meet the following requirements: TP-14-1024/SP-14-B/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 27 A. The tentative plan shall indicate all lot divisions, including those along the common wall of duplex units. FINDINGS: The applicant's submitted tentative plan for the zero-lot-line subdivision shows all lot divisions for the attached and detached single-family dwellings. B. Independent utility service shall be provided to each unit, including, but not limited to, water, electricity and natural gas, unless common utilities are approved by the affected utility agency and are adequately covered by easements. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to provide independent utility service including sewer, water. electricity, cable, and phone service to each lot. The applicant's burden of proof states that electricity, cable, natural gas and telephone utility infrastructure to serve the project already has been extended to the Points West Subdivision within Chipper Road which abuts the subject property, and that these facilities and services will be extended to each new lot within the Mile Post One Subdivision. The applicant attached as Exhibit "C" to its burden of proof a Preliminary Utility Plan showing the location of these utility facilities. For these reasons, and with imposition of a condition of approval requiring the installation of these utility service facilities for each lot and dwelling, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. C. Prior to the granting of final approval for creation of a zero lot line subdivision or partition, the Planning Director shall require the applicant(s) to enter into a written agreement in a form approved by the County Legal Counsel that establishes the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of the parties with respect to maintenance and use of any common areas of the unit, such as, but not limited to, common walls, roofing, water pipes and electrical wiring. Such agreement shall be in a form suitable for recording, and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties. FINDINGS: The applicant submitted as Exhibit "B" to its burden of proof draft CC&Rs for the Mile Post One Subdivision that include provisions addressing assessments and responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of the subdivision's common elements including the private roadway. The applicant's burden of proof states the proposed CC&Rs will be similar to those approved for the Points West Subdivision and will be refined as necessary for the Mile Post One Subdivision prior to final plat approval. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit draft CC&Rs for the Mile Post One Subdivision to the office of county Legal Counsel for its review and approval prior to final plat approval. D. Each zero lot line subdivision or partition proposal shall receive site plan approval prior to submission of the final plat. Site plan approval shall be granted only upon a finding that the design, materials and colors proposed for each dwelling are harmonious and do not detract from the general appearance of the neighborhood. FINDINGS: The applicant has applied for site plan approval. Its burden of proof includes elevation drawings for the proposed dwellings. The drawings show the dwellings are designed to resemble single-family dwellings rather than the more typical urban-style townhouses. The proposed exterior building materials include natural stone, wood timbers and muted earth tones to blend with the TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 28 natural environment and the structures within the adjacent Seventh Mountain and Widgi Creek resorts. Based on the elevation drawings and building material descriptions, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion because the proposed dwellings will be harmonious with and will not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. 2. Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development Plans a. Section 17.16.100, Required Findings for Approval 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 meet the requirements of DCC Title 17 and DCC Title 18 through 21, and is In compliance with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall Include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The subdivision contributes to 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. FINDINGS: 1. land Use Patterns. The existing land use pattern in the area surrounding the subject property consists of resort and residential development within the Seventh Mountain and Widgi Creek resorts. Existing residential development reflects a variety of styles and densities. In addition, surrounding development includes private roads, infrastructure, and the Widgi Creek Golf Course. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed Mile Post One Subdivision will be similar to, and will therefore be compatible with, the existing development pattern because it will include single-family dwellings. and the infrastructure to support them. Opponents have raised a number of questions about whether the applicant's proposal is consistent with existing land use patterns because of application of the Seventh MountainlWidgi Creek master plan. As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed subdivision is not subject to the Widgi Creek master plan. 2. Orderly Development. The applicant proposes that the Mile Post One Subdivision lots and dwellings will have access from the Cascade Lakes Highway via the existing Seventh Mountain entrance driveway and two private roads, and the dwellings will be served by the Seventh Mountain water system, City of Bend sewer system, and utility services through extension of existing utility facilities serving the adjacent developments. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed subdivision will represent orderly development because it is permitted outright in the Resort Community and LM Zones and because all dwellings will be served by adequate infrastructure. 3. Preservation of Natural Features and Resources. The record indicates the subject property does not have any streams, lakes, or special terrain features. It has some natural vegetation including scattered pine trees and native brush and grasses. However, as discussed above, the subject property previously was developed with the horse stables and various utility facilities for the Seventh Mountain resort. In addition, the subject property is located within the landscape management corridors for the Deschutes River and the Cascade Lakes Highway. The Hearings I I Officer has found that in order to comply with the LM Zone standards, the applicant will be required as conditions of approval to obtain scenic waterway review from Parks and Recreation, to preserve I TP-14-1 024/SP-14·8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 29 II ~ 1 existing vegetation (except vegetation required to be removed for construction), to plant additional screening trees, and to submit a landscape plan showing the number and location of trees to be removed and planted. I find that with imposition of these conditions of approval the applicant's proposal will preserve natural features and resources. B. The subdivision will not facilities and services, development. create and ut excessive ilities dem required and to on serve public the FINDINGS: Public facilities and services affected by the proposed subdivision include domestic water, sewer, roads, storm drainage, police and fire protection, andschools. Each of these facilities and services is addressed in the findings below. 1. Domestic Water. The applicant proposes to provide domestic and irrigation water to the new subdivision through connection to the existing Seventh Mountain water system pursuant to a Joint Use Agreement with the Seventh Mountain Resort, a copy of which is included in the record in Exhibit "C" to the applicant's burden of proof. The burden of proof states portions of the water system improvements necessary to serve the Mile. Post One Subdivision have been completed within the adjacent Points West SubdiviSion, including installation of a 10-inch water main within Chipper Road. The applicant's submitted Preliminary Utility Plan, also included in Exhibit "C,· shows the water supply and service to each building and lot as well as on-site fire protection fire hydrants. In her initial April 23, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Tamara Macleod, representing the Seventh Mountain AUO which operates the Seventh Mountain water system, stated in relevant part: "The AUO acknowledges that there is a private agreement between it and AWD [Arrowood Development] regarding the use of the AUO's facilities and points of appropriation for A WD's domestic, commercial, irrigation and fire suppression water use (,Water Agreement'). [Footnote omitted.] That Water Agreement specifically contemplates AWD using the AUO's water infrastructure for approximately 42 hotel or condominium units and approximately 64 townhome units. Under the AWD applications, the AUO assumes that it is this same Water Agreement that will be utilized for the 24 townhomes requested. What is not clear to the AUO, however, is whether the impact on the AUO's water facilities and infrastructure is the same for the now proposed 24 townhomes as it was for the originally contemplated 42 condominiumlhotel units. For the sake of analysis, the AUO believes the townhomes will be capable of accommodating more people (thus more water users) than hotel or condominium units. In fact, Applicant has indicated that each townhome will be 'over 1,600 square feet' [footnote omitted] while it was the AUO's understanding that the hotel or condominium units would have been much smaller. As a result, the AUO submits it is reasonable to conclude that the AUO's infrastructure for water usage may be more burdened under the current proposal than the usage contemplated by the original Water Agreement. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate that the Water Agreement (thus the AUO's current water infrastructure) provides adequate system capacity for the proposal before approval is granted. The AUO believes such a requirement can be satisfied if approval is conditioned on the Applicant submitting to the Deschutes County Planning Department a written document from the AUO that (a) the Applicant's engineer has TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17. Arrowood Page 30 adequately confirmed capacity under the Water Agreement or (b) the AUO has withdrawn its concern in this regard. J1 (Underscored emphasis in original.) At the public hearing the applicant's attorney Tia Lewis expressed concern about the effect of imposing the condition suggested by Ms. Macleod on the applicant's financing, and requested that the written evidentiary record be left open to allow the applicant and the AUO to resolve this issue. On July 15, 2014, while the record was open, Ms. Macleod submitted another letter stating in relevant part: "The AUO has analyzed the issue further and discussed the same with Applicant and its counsel. The AUO believes that the private agreement(s) between the parties related to the water system adequately protect the AUO. As a result, by this letter, the AUO withdraws its request for a condition of approval requiring AWD to submit written documentation from the AUO that (a) Applicant's engineer has confirmed capacity of the water system or (b) the AUO has withdrawn its concern in this regard. II On July 15, 2014, Ms. Lewis submitted on the applicant's behalf a memorandum from Tim Weishaupt, P.E., with Sun Country Engineering & Surveying, Inc., addressing the capacity of the Seventh Mountain AUO's water system. Based on his calculations of current and projected water use included in the memorandum. Mr. Weishaupt concluded the water system "has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development.n Finally, in its comments on the applicant's proposal, the Oregon Health Division stated that if the proposed development "extends (or adds to) the Widgi Creek water system, then plan review may be required prior to construction." The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to apply for and obtain all required plan review and approval for use of the Seventh Mountain water system, and to submit to the Planning Division written documentation of such review and approval, if any, before any construction permits are issued for dwellings in the proposed subdivision. 2. Sewer. The applicant proposes to provide sewage disposal to the new dwellings through extension of and connection to the existing City of Bend sewer facilities and services via the existing private Seventh Mountain resort sewer main. The applicant's burden of proof states this sewer connection will be made in accordance with a written sewer service agreement entitled "First Amended License and Sewer Service Agreement Between City of Bend and PWD Associates, LLC, Successor in Interest to Arrowood Development. LLC." This agreement is dated July 29,2013 and was recorded in the Deschutes County Clerk's office on July 30. 2013. A copy of this agreement is included in the record as part of Exhibit "C" to the applicant's burden of proof. This agreement provides, among other things, that the applicant must mitigate any impacts to the downstream city sewer system from sewage generated by the Mile Post One Subdivision. The record indicates the applicant has executed a shared sewer service agreement with the Seventh Mountain resort in order to share the existing private sewer line. The applicant proposes to extend individual sewer service to each lot in accordance with applicable city standards and policies. The applicant's burden of proof states its engineer reviewed the capacity of the immediate downstream sewer collection system and confirmed that the existing sewer main collection system has adequate capacity to handle the sewage flows from all of the proposed development. The Hearings Officer finds that to assure there is adequate capacity, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to provide to the Planning Division written documentation from the applicant's engineer of adequate sewer capacity. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 31 3. Storm Drainage. The applicant proposes to dispose of storm water by fully containing it on site through a system of drainage swales, infiltration/retention basins, and drainage drywells. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install and maintain all storm/surface water drainage systems in accordance with DEQ's design standards for such systems. ... : . 4. Roads. The applicant proposes access to the new subdivision dwellings from Cascade Lakes Highway via the existing Seventh Mountain entrance driveway, Chipper Road which is an existing 28-foot-wide private road within the Points West Subdivision, and a new private road loop connecting to Chipper Road. The applicant proposes that the new loop road would have 24 feet of pavement with parking allowed on only one side of the road. The applicant submitted an updated traffic analysis demonstrating that the intersection of the Seventh Mountain driveway and Cascade Lakes Highway will continue to function at acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed 24-lot zero-lot-line subdivision. The staff report recommends that the applicant be required as a condition of approval to submit verification of an agreement/easement for the use of the Seventh Mountain access driveway. In her July 1, 2014 memorandum, the applicant's attorney Tia Lewis noted that in her 2006 decision approving the Points West Subdivision (TP-06-968, SP-06-13, LM-06-34), Hearings Officer Briggs held the following evidence demonstrated legal access on this road to the Points West Subdivision: "(1) a March 10, 1970 roadway easement granted from Condominium Land Company to Condominium NW, Inc., that describes the roadway; (2) a February 7, 1969 deed to the Huff Trust property from the applicant's predecessor in interest to the Huff Trust's predecessor in interest; and (3) the easement agreement between AUO and the applicant that permits the applicant to use the easement for access and utility uses. " A copy of Hearings Officer Briggs' decision is included in this record as Exhibit "A" to Ms. Lewis' memorandum. Ms. Lewis also submitted copies of the documents on which Hearings Officer Briggs relied in finding legal access (Exhibits "B," "C" and "D" to the memorandum). This Hearings Officer finds this evidence, and Hearings Officer Briggs' findings in the previous case, are sufficient to demonstrate the applicant has legal access to the subject property over Seventh Mountain roads. 5. Police. The subject property is served by the Deschutes County Sheriff. 6. Fire. The subject property is located within the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2 which is served by the City of Bend Fire Department. In his comments on the applicant's proposal, Larry Medina of the fire department included a number of requirements the applicant must satisfy for fire apparatus access roads, fire protection water supplies, and other fire service features. Mr. Medina did not express any concern about the city's ability to serve the subject property or the applicant's ability to meet the city's requirements. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds it is appropriate to assume the fire department's requirements can be met in light of Mr. Medina's comments and the existence of development similar to the applicant's proposal in the area surrounding the subject property. I find that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to satisfy all of the fire department's requirements, and to submit to the Planning Division written documentation from the fire department that all such requirements have been met, before construction permits are issued for any dwelling. 7. Schools. The Bend-LaPine School District did not submit comments on the applicant's proposal. The Hearings Officer is aware the district responds in a variety of ways to accommodate additional students who may move into new developments. I also am aware the school district TP-14-1 024/SP-14-S/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 32 I I often requests that roads within the development have sidewalks to accommodate student pedestrians, and that the developer be required to provide the school district with a perpetual easement to allow school district vehicles to travel across private roads. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, the Hearings Officer has found that given the low traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the 24 new dwellings and the applicant's proposal to construct multi-use paths throllgh the subdivision to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, there will be sufficient room to safely accommodate pedestrians. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy this criterion. C. The tentative plan for the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of ORS 92.090. FINDINGS: The relevant provisions of ORS 92.090 and the proposal's compliance with those provisions are addressed in the findings below. (1) Subdivision plat names shall be subject to the approval of the county surveyor or, in the case where there is no county surveyor, the county assessor. No tentative subdivision plan or subdivision plat of a subdivision shall be approved which bears a name similar to or pronounced the same as the name of any other subdivision in the same county, unless the land platted is contiguous to and platted by the same party that platted the subdivision bearing that name or unless the party files and records the consent of the party that platted the contiguous subdivision bearing that name. All subdivision plats must continue the lot numbers and, if used, the block numbers of the subdivision plat of the same name last filed. On or after January 1, 1992, any subdivision submitted for final approval shall not use block numbers or letters unless such subdivision is a continued phase of a previously recorded subdivision, bearing the same name, that has previously used block numbers or letters. The proposed subdivision name of Mile PQ,.st One does not appear to have been previously used in the county. The _Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain approval of the subdivision name from the Deschutes County Surveyor. (2) No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and not tentative plan for a proposed partition shall be approved unless: (a) The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other aspects unless the city or county determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. (b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. (c) The tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning ordinances and regulations and the ordinances and regulations adopted under ORS 92.044 that are then in effect for the city or county within which the land described in the plan is situated. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 33 The proposed subdivision will be adjacent to the Points West Subdivision as well as the Seventh Mountain resort, and the proposed subdivision lots would have access from the same public and private roads that serve the Points West Subdivision and the Seventh Mountain resort. Compliance with the zoning ordinance is addressed in findings above. (3) No plat of a proposed subdivision or partition shall be approved unless: (a) Streets and roads for public use are dedicated without any reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street or road and easements for pu blic or private utilities. (b) Streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the tentative plan of such subdivision or partition have been approved by the city or county. (c) The subdivision or partition plat complies with any applicable zoning ordinances and regulations and any ordinance or regulation adopted under ORS 92.044 that are then in effect for the city or county within which the land described in the subdivision or partition plat is situated. (d) The subdivision or partition plat is in substantial conformity with the provisions of the tentative plan for the subdivision or partition, as approved. (e) The subdivision or partition plat contains a donation to the public of all common improvements, including but not limited to streets, roads, parks, sewage disposal and water supply systems, the donation of which was made a condition of the approval of the tentative plan for the subdivision or partition plat. (f) Explanations for all common improvements required as conditions of approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision or partition have been recorded and referenced on the subdivision or partition plat. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes access for the subdivision lots from Chipper Road, an existing private road, and a new private loop road connecting to Chipper Road. Compliance with the zoning ordinance is addressed in the findings above. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section establish requirements for final plat review and therefore are not applicable to the applicant's proposed tentative plan. (4) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat of a subdivision shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has received and accepted: (a) A certification by a city·owned domestic water supply system or by the owner of a privately owned domestic water supply system, subject to regulation by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, that water will be available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat; FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the applicant submitted a copy of the agreement between the Seventh Mountain AUO and the applicant for water service, included in the record as Exhibit 5 to the applicant's May 16, 2014 memorandum. In addition, the record includes a letter from the AUO stating it is satisfied that the water system has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, and a letter from the applicant's engineer confirming sufficient capacity. The TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 34 Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to extend a domestic water line to each of the 24 lots in the subdivision. (5) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat of a subdivision shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has received and accepted: (a) A certification by a city-owned sewage disposal system or by the owner of a privately owned sewage disposal system that is subject to regulation by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon that a sewage disposal system will be available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat; FINDINGS: The applicant submitted as Exhibit "C" to its burden of proof a copy of an amended license and sewer service agreement between the applicant and the City of Bend. The staff report recommends, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit to the Planning Division written verification from the city that sewer service will be available to the lot line of each lot in the proposed subdivision. (6) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat of subdivision or partition located within the boundaries of an irrigation district, drainage district, water control district, water improvement district or district improvement company shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has received and accepted a certification from the district or company that the subdivision or partition is either entirely excluded from the district or company or is included within the district or company for purposes of receiving services and subjecting the subdivision or partition to the fees and other charges of the district or company. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the record indicates the_subject property is not located within any irrigation district, drainage district, water control district, water improvement district or district improvement company. D. For subdivision or portions thereof proposed within a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) zone under DCC Title 18, the subdivision creates lots on which noise or dust sensitive uses can be sited consistent with the requirements of DCC 18.56, as amended, as demonstrated by the site plan and accompanying information required under DCC 17.16.030. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the subject property is not within a SMIA Zone. E. The subdivision name has been approved by the County Surveyor. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain approval of the proposed subdivision name from the Deschutes County Surveyor prior to final plat approval. c. Section 17.16.105, Access to Subdivisions TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 35 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 acces,sing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards and has been accepted for maintenance purposes. FINDINGS: The proposed subdivision lots would have access from the Cascade Lakes Highway, an OOOT-maintained arterial road, via the existing Seventh Mountain entrance driveway, Chipper Road (a private road constructed to the county's standards), and a new private loop road connecting to Chipper Road that would be improved to the county's standards with a 24-foot-wide paved surface. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. 3. Chapter 17.36, Design Standards a. Section 17.36.020, Streets A. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, topographical conditions, public convenience and safety, and the proposed use of land to be served by the streets. The street system shall assure an adequate traffic circulation system for all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles with intersection angles, grades, tangents, and curves appropriate for traffic to be carried, considering the terrain. The subdivision or partition shall provide for the continuation of the principal streets existing in the adjoining subdivision or partition or of their property projection when adjoining property which is not subdivided, and such streets shall be of a width not less than the minimum requirement for streets set forth in this chapter. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed system of private roads serving the Mile Post One Subdivision, all of which have been or will be improved to the county's standards for rural private roads, along with the applicant's proposed multi-use pathways, will ensure adequate traffic circulation for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The private loop road will have rolled curbs on both sides, and parking will be allowed on one side only through signage and restrictions in the subdivision's CC&Rs. Continued maintenance of the private subdivision road also will be assured through provisions in the CC&Rs. In his May 7,2014 comments on the applicantts proposal, County Engineer George Kolb stated: "The applicant is to meet the following conditions if this land use application is approved: 1. Road design shall be in accordance with DCC 17.48.180, Private Roads and Table A, DCC private roads. TP-14-1024/SP-14-B/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 36 2. Construction plans for all required road improvements shall be approved by the County Road Department prior to commencement of any construction in accordance with DCC 17.48.060. 3. Roads and bike paths shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with DCC 17.48.200. 4. The applicant shall construct all improvements under the inspection and approval of the Deschutes County Road Department Director. The Director may accept certification of improvements by a professional engineer consistent with DRS 92.097. 5. All easements of record or existing right-of-ways shall be shown on the final plat. » The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required to comply with these requirements as a condition of approval. . B. Streets in subdivisions shall be dedicated to the public, unless located in a destination resort, planned community or planned or cluster development, where roads can be privately owned. Planned developments shall include public streets where necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic. FINDINGS: The subject property is located in a Resort Community Zone where private roads are allowed under Section 18.11 O.060(J)(1». The applicant has proposed to serve the subdivision lots with private roads constructed to the county's private road standards. The applicant has proposed CC&Rs for the Mile Post One Subdivision that will ensure the continued maintenance of the private subdivision road by the property owners, and the Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit proposed CC&Rs to Deschutes County Legal Counsel for review and approval. b. Section 17.36.040, Existing Streets Whenever existing streets, adjacent to or within a tract, are of inadequate width to accommodate the increase in traffic expected from the subdivision or partition or by the County roadway network plan, additional rights of way shall be provided at the time of the land division by the applicant. During consideration of the tentative plan for the subdivision or partition, the Planning Director or Hearings Body, together with the Road Department Director, shall determine whether improvements to existing streets adjacent to or within the tract, are required. If so determined, such improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the tentative plan. Improvements to adjacent streets shall be required where traffic on such streets will be directly affected by the proposed subdivision or partition. FINDINGS: The existing private roads within the Seventh Mountain resort and the Points West Subdivision have been improved and developed to the county's private road standards and were approved by the road department as part of previous land use approvals including the final plat for the Points West Subdivision. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to construct the private subdivision road in TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 37 accordance with the design standards in Table liN of Title 17 and under the supervision and approval of the road department. c. Section 17.36.050, Continuation of Streets Subdivision or partition streets which constitute the continuation of streets in contiguous territory shall be aligned so that their centerlines coincide. FINDINGS: The proposed Mile Post One Subdivision will be served by private roads. However, there are no proposed private subdivision roads that constitute a continuation of an existing street and therefore the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable. d. Section 17.36.060, Minimum Right of Way and Roadway Width rhe street right of way and roadway surfacing widths shall be in conformance with standards and specifications set forth in DCC 17.48. Where DCC 17.48 refers to street standards found in a zoning ordinance, the standards in the zoning ordinance shall prevail. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to construct all subdivision roads in conformance with the county's standards and specifications for private roads, including a pavement width of 24 feet with no parking on one side of the road. e. Section 17.36.080, Future Extension of Streets When necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision or partition. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the Resort Community Zone in which the subject property is located consists of two distinct resort communities that are gated and connected only by an emergency access drive at the northeast corner of abutting the Points West Subdivision. As a result, there is no grid system or through connection between these communities. The applicant has proposed a private loop road that would connect with Chipper Road and the adjoining development. All adjacent developments have been approved as having adequate access, making future street extensions unnecessary. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds no future street connections are required. f. Section 17.36.120, Street Names Except for extensions of existing streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the County and shall require approval from the County Property Address Coordinator. FINDINGS: The applicant has not identified a proposed name for the private loop road connecting to Chipper Road. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain approval of the proposed road name from the county Property Address Coordinator. g. Section 17.36.130, Sidewalks TP-14-1 02 4/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 38 * * * C. Sidewalk requirements for areas outside of urban areas are set forth in DCC 17.48.175. In the absence of a special requirement set forth by the Road Department Director under DCC 17.48.030, sidewalks and curbs are never required in rural areas outside unincorporated communities as that term is defined in DCC Title 18. FINDINGS: Sidewalks and curbs are not required in rural areas outside unincorporated communities. The applicant has proposed to construct multi-use pathways in the subdivision to provide safe circulation for bicycles and pedestrians. The applicant also proposes to construct the private subdivision road with rolled curbs on both sides, and with no parking on one side of the road. Because of the minimal traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed subdivision, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed private road and pedestrian pathways will provide satisfactory vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the subdivision. h. Section 17.36.140, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Requirements A. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation within Subdivision. 1. The tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall provide for bicycle and pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements within the subdivision and to nearby existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, such as schools, shopping areas and parks in a manner that will: a. Minimize such interference from automobile traffic that would discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips; b. Provide a direct route of travel between destinations within the subdivision and existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, and c. Otherwise meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, considering the destination and length of trip. FINDINGS: The record indicates there are no nearby existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, schools or parks -likely because the subject property is located within a Resort Community zone and is surrounded by resort development. The applicant's proposal contemplates pedestrians and bicycles would use multi-use pathways within the subdivision as well as the private road system within the subdivision which will connect to the adjacent resort areas. The Hearings Officer finds that with the minimal level of vehicle traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed subdivision the private subdivision road and multi-use pathways will provide adequately for pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle usage. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposed road layout will accommodate different modes of travel within the subdivision and neighboring properties. 2. Subdivision Layout a. Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets shall be allowed only where, due to topographical or environmental TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17. Arrowood Page 39 constraints, the size and shape of the parcel, or a lack of through-street connections in the area, a street connection is determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to be infeasible or inappropriate. In such instances, where applicable and feasible, there shall be a bicycle and pedestrian connection connecting the ends of cul de-sacs to streets or neighborhood activity centers on the opposite side of the block. b. Bicycle and pedestrian connections between streets shall be provided at mid-block where the addition of a connection would reduce the walking or cycling distance to an existing or planned neighborhood activity center by 400 feet and by at least 50 percent over other available routes. c. Local roads shall align and connect with themselves across collectors and arterials. Connections to existing or planned streets and undeveloped properties shall be provided at no greater than 400-foot intervals. d. Connections shall not be more than 400 feet long and shall be as straight as possible. FINDINGS: The proposed subdivision does not include any cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets. There· is no grid system with typical blocks in the area. The subdivision would have access from Cascade Lakes Highway via an existing private road and new connecting private road with shared maintenance between the homeowners' associations. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the subdivision and private road layout will assure safe and convenient access for emergency vehicles, residents and guests. 3. Facilities and Improvements. a. Bikeways may be provided by either a separate paved path or an on-street bi ke lane, consistent with the requirements of DCC Title 17. b. Pedestrian access may be provided by sidewalks or a separate paved path, consistent with the requirements of DCC Title 17. c. Connections shall have a 20-foot right of way, with at least a 10-foot usable surface. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes a 24-foot-wide private road with rolled curbs on both sides and with parking allowed on one side only. The applicant proposes that bicycle and pedestrian traffic would use multi-use pathways within the subdivision. The Hearings Officer finds that in light of the relatively low volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the new subdivision, the private road and multi-use pathways will provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle access. TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 40 i. Section 17.36.150, Blocks A. General. The length, width and shape of blocks shall accommodate the need for adequate building site size, street width and direct travel routes for pedestrians and cyclists through the subdivision and to nearby neighborhood activity centers, and shall be compatible with the limitations of the topography. FINDINGS: The proposed subdivision has no blocks. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed subdivision configuration and private road design will accommodate the needs and travel routes of pedestrians and cyclists. B. Size. Within an urban growth boundary, no block shall be longer than 1,200 feet between street centerlines. In blocks over 800 feet In length, there shall be a cross connection consistent with the provisions of Dee 17.36.140. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the subject property is located outside of an urban growth boundary. j. Section 17.36.160, Easements A. Utility Easements. Easements shall be provided along property lines when necessary for the placement of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or partition with electric power, communication facilities, street lighting, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines or drainage. Such easements shall be labeled "Public Utility Easement" on the tentative and final plat; they shall be at least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines where possible, except utility pole guyline easements along the rear of lots or parcels adjacent to unsubdivided land may be reduced to 10 feet in width. B. Drainage. If a tract is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right of way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse, or in such further width as will be adequate for the purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major watercourses or drainageways may be required. FINDINGS: The tentative plan shows utility (water and sewer) easement locations in the private subdivision road. These easements also will be shown on the final subdivision plat. The applicant proposes that the subdivision lots and dwellings be served by City of Bend sewer facilities pursuant to a sewer service license/agreement between the applicant and the city. There are no water courses such as a drainageway, channel or stream, on the property. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to satisfy the reqUirements of Paragraph (A) of this subsection. k. Section 17.36.170, Lots-Size and Shape TP-14-1024/SP-14-S/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 41 The size, width and orientation of lots or parcels shall be appropriate for the location of the land division and for the type of development and use contemplated, and shall be consistent with the lot or parcel size provisions of DCC Title 18 through 21. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the size, width and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate for the proposed zero-lot-line subdivision, a use permitted in the Resort Community Zone. I. Section 17.36.180, Frontage A. Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road, or when located in a planned development or cluster development, a private road, for at least 50 feet, except for lots or parcels fronting on the bulb of a cul·de-sac, then the minimum frontage shall be 30 feet, and except for partitions off of U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads. In the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Residential Center District, lot widths may be less than 50 feet in width, as specified in DCC 18.61, Table 2: La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Zoning Standards. Road frontage standards in destination resorts shall be subject to review in the conceptual master plan. B. All side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved streets wherever practical. FINDINGS: Section 18.110.060(J) provides that zero-lot-line subdivisions are exempt from the lot requirements in this section, including width and frontage. The submitted tentative plan shows all lots have been sized and oriented to accommodate the attached and detached dwellings planned within the subdivision. m. Section 17.36.260, Fire Hazards Whenever possible, a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision or partition shall be provided to provide assured access for emergency vehicles and ease resident evacuation. FINDINGS: Access to the subject property is from Cascade Lake Highway via Chipper Road, an existing private road in the Points West Subdivision, and a new private loop road that would connect with Chipper Road. As discussed in the findings above, in addition to the loop road there is an emergency access/egress near the northeast corner of the adjacent Points West Subdivision that connects Chipper Road to Elkai Woods Road in the Widgi Creek resort. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. n. Section 17.36.280, Water and Sewer lines Where required by the applicable zoning ordinance, water and sewer lines shall be constructed to County and city standards and specifications. Required water mains and service lines shall be installed prior to the curbing and paving of new streets in all new subdivisions or partitions. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 42 I 1 1 i I ! f i FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to serve the new subdivision lots and dwellings with domestic 1 water from the Seventh Mountain water system. Sewage treatment would be provided by the extension of and connection to existing City of Bend sewer facilities. The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to construct all water and sewer lines I i to the applicable county and city standards and specifications, and to install all required sewer and water mains prior to paving the new private road within the subdivision. In addition, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit to the Planning Division written verification that water and sewer lines have been extended to each lot prior to final plat approval. o. Section 17.36.300, Public Water System In any subdivision or partition where a public water system is required or proposed, plans for the water system shall be submitted and approved by the appropriate state or federal agency. A community water system shall be required where lot or parcel sizes are less then one acre or where potable water sources are at depths greater than 500 feet, excepting land partitions. Except as provided for in DCC 17.24.120 and 17.24.130, a required water system shall be constructed and operational, with lines extended to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed subdivision or partition plat, prior to final approval. FINDINGS: The proposed lots are less than one acre in size and, therefore, a community water system is required. The applicant proposes to provide domestic water through connection to the Seventh Mountain water system. The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the water system shall be operational, with lines extended to each lot, prior to final plat approval. In addition, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain any and all required plan review and approval of the water system from the Oregon Health Division, and to provide to the Planning Division written verification of that review and approval, prior to final plat approval. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy all applicable approval criteria in Chapter 17.36. 4. Chapter 17.44, Park Development a. Section 17.44.010, Dedication of Land A. For subdivisions or partitions inside an urban growth boundary, the developer shall set aside and dedicate to the public for park and recreation purposes not less than eight percent of the gross area of such development, if the land is suitable and adaptable for such purposes and is generally located in an area planned for parks. B. For subdivisions or partitions outside of an urban growth boundary, the developer shall set aside a minimum area of the development equal to $350 per dwelling unit within the development, if the land is suitable and adaptable for such purposes and is generally located in an area planned for parks. * * * TP-14-1 024/SP-14-S/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 43 f I F. DCC 17.44.010 shall not apply to the subdivision or partition of lands located within the boundaries of a parks district with a permanent tax rate. FINDIN~S: The subject property is located outside of an urban growth boundary and is not within the boundaries of the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District or the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District. The applicant states the subject property does not have land that is suitable and adaptable for park purposes. Several opponents disagree, arguing the applicant should be required to provide park land within the subdivision. The Hearings Officer finds that in light of the subject property's location more or less in the center of a resort area that provides numerous recreational amenities and opportunities, and the proposed configuration of the subdivision, the proposed subdivision does not have land that is suitable and adaptable for park purposes and the applicant need not set aside park land. Rather, the applicant must comply with Section 17.44.020 discussed below. b. Section 17.44.020, Fee in Lieu of Dedication A. In the event there is no suitable park or recreation area or site in the proposed subdivision or partition, or adjacent thereto, then the developer shall, in lieu of setting aside land, pay into a park acquisition and development fund a sum of money equal to the fair market value of the land that would have been donated under 17.44.010 above. For the purpose of determining the fair market value, the latest value of the land, unplatted and without improvements, as shown on the County Assessor's tax roll shall be used. The sum so contributed shall be deposited with the County Treasurer and be used for acquisition of suitable area for park and recreation purposes or for the development of recreation facilities. Such expenditures shall be made for neighborhood or community facilities at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and/or applicable park district B. DCC 17.44.020 shall not apply to subdivision or partition of lands located within the boundaries of a parks district with a permanent tax rate. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be satisfied by imposition of a condition of approval requiring the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of dedication of park land in the amount of $8,400 ($350 x 24 dwelling units). 5. Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications a. Section 17.48.160, Road Development Requirements-Standards A. Subdivision Standards. All roads in new subdivisions shall either be constructed to a standard acceptable for inclusion in the County maintained system or the subdivision shall be part of a special road district or a homeowners association in a planned unit development. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes that the private subdivision road be improved to the county's standards for rural private roads with 24 feet of pavement width, rolled curbs on both sides, and no parking on one side of the road. The applicant proposes to provide for continued maintenance of TP-14-1 024/SP-14-B/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 44 I 1 1, the private road by the homeowners' association through subdivision CC&Rs. The Hearings Officer 1 has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to construct the private roads to the county's standards and specifications for such roads pursuant to Table "A" of Title 17. F. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall have a length of less than 600 feet, unless a longer length is approved by the applicable fire protection district, and more than 100 feet from the center of the bulb to the intersection with the main road. The maximum grade on the bulb shall be four percent. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the proposed subdivision does not include any cul-de-sacs. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described in the findings above, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies or will satisfy all applicable criteria in Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicant's proposed tentative subdivision plan, site plan review and LM site plan review, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval is based on the applicant's submitted burden of proof and exhibits, supplemental materials, and written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the approved plans will require new land use applications and approvals. PRIOR TO SUBMITIING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR APPROVAL: 2. The applicant/owner shall obtain approval from the Deschutes County Surveyor for the subdivision name. 3. The applicant/owner shall obtain approval from the Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator for the new subdivision road name. 4. The applicant/owner shall submit a current title report for the entire subject property. 5. The applicant/owner shall prepare the final subdivision plat in accordance with the requirements of Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code and ORS Chapter 92. The final plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor and shall show all property comers, public rights of-way, the exact size for each lot, and all utility easements. All utility easements shall be labeled "public utility easement" on the final plat. The final plat shall contain a statement of water rights, and show all existing easements of record. 6. The applicant/owner shall pay all ad valorem taxes, fees, and other charges that have become a lien on the entire parcel. The final plat shall be signed by the County Assessor and the County Finance Director. 7. The applicant/owner shall pay to the Deschutes County Community Development Department the sum of $8,400 (eight thousand four hundred dollars) for the parks in-lieu of dedication fee and submit a copy of the receipt documenting payment to the Planning Division. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 45 8. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Road Department for its review and approval construction plans for all required road improvements demonstrating compliance with the design standards and specifications in Title 17 and Table liN of Title 17. 9. The applicant/owner shall construction all improvements under the inspection and approval of the Director of the Deschutes County Road Department. The Director may accept certification of improvements by a professional engineer consistent with ORS 92.097. All subdivision roads shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with DCC 17.48.200 10. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Oregon Health Division that the Division has given any required plan review and approval of the Seventh Mountain water supply for use in the Mile Post One Subdivision. 11. The applicant shall obtain approval from the State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department for development within a State Scenic Waterway. 12. The applicant/owner shall register and obtain authorization by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or any new UICs. The applicant/owner shall install all surface drainage systems in conformance with the applicable DEQ design standards for such systems. 13. The applicant/owner shall extend sewer lines to the boundary of each lot and submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the City of Bend Public Works Department verifying construction of the sewer lines meets the city's standards and specifications. 14. The applicant/owner shall extend water lines to the boundary of each lot and provide written documentation from the Seventh Mountain Association of Unit Owners (AUO) to the Deschutes County Planning Division that the lines have been constructed to the AUO's standards and specifications for the Seventh Mountain water system. 15. The applicant/owner shall construct all water and sewer lines to the applicable county and city standards and specifications, and install all required sewer and water mains prior to paving the new private road within the subdivision. 16. The applicant shall submit to Deschutes County Legal Counsel for its review and approval draft covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or other written agreement for maintenance of the new private road for the Mile Post One Subdivision. 17. The applicant/owner shall submit, to Deschutes County Legal Counsel for its review and approval a written agreement in an approved form that establishes the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of the parties with respect to maintenance and use of any common areas of the unit, such as, but not limited to, common walls, roofing, water pipes and electrical wiring. Such agreement shall be in a form suitable for recording, and shall state that it is binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties. 18. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division a revision to its submitted site plan showing: TP-14-1 D24/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 46 a. where and how refuse carts will be stored between pick-ups and how they will be screened; and b. the location and design of all above-ground utility facilities and how they will be screened with vegetation or otherwise so that adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties are minimized. 19. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division a landscape plan showing both the number and location of the trees to be removed and the number and location of all additional trees required to be planted under Conditions 26 and 27 of this decision. 20. The applicant/owner shall construct the private subdivision road in accordance with the design standards in Table aN of Title 17 and under the supervision and approval of the Deschutes County Road Department. The private subdivision road shall have 24 (twenty four) feet of paved surface and rolled curbs on each side. The applicant shall construct mUlti-use pathways in the subdivision in accordance with the revised site plan dated July 2. 2014. Parking shall be allowed on one side of the road only. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: 21. The applicant/owner shall apply for and obtain all required plan review and approval for use of the Seventh Mountain water system. and submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the Seventh Mountain AUO of such review and approval. if any. that the Seventh Mountain water system is operational. and that water lines have been extended to each lot. 22. The applicant/owner shall meet all requirements of the Deschutes County Building Division for structures in the subdivision. 23. The applicant/owner shall provide to the Deschutes County Planning Division samples of the exterior finishes and colors and roofing materials demonstrating compliance with this criterion. 24. The applicant/owner shall satisfy all requirements set forth in the April 23. 2014 written comments from the City of Bend Fire Department and submit to the Deschutes County Planning Division written documentation from the fire department that all such requirements have been met. 25. The applicant/owner shall limit the dwellings to no more than 30 feet in height. WITH CONSTRUCTION: 26. The applicant/owner shall plant 3 (three) ponderosa pine or other evergreen species trees on Lots 4, 5,6,7. 8 and 9 in the Mile Post One SUbdivision. The trees shall be planted no more than 30 feet apart along the north property line of these lots. 27. The applicant/owner shall plant a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees in the area between Lots 1-3 of the Mile Post One Subdivision and the Seventh Mountain property to provide screening between the two developments. TP-14-1 024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 47 28. The applicant/owner shall install any outdoor lighting in conformance with the County's outdoor lighting standards in Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code, and so such lighting is shielded and directed downward so it is not visible from either Cascade Lakes H!gbway or the Deschutes River. 29. The applicant/owner shall install any signs or outdoor advertising so it is not visible from the Deschutes River and in conformance with the sign code in Chapter 15.08 of the Deschutes County Code. 30. The applicant/owner shall comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) identified by the Deschutes County Building Division during plan review and permitting process for the dwellings. 31. The applicant/owner shall provide with each dwelling ground-level spaces with accessible private outdoor patios and yards at least 48 square feet in size. 32. The applicant/owner shall connect and install all required utility service facilities to each lot and dwelling. AT ALL TIMES: 33. The applicant/owner shall retain all existing trees and vegetation on the subject property except those trees and vegetation required to be removed for construction. 34. The applicant/owner shall water and maintain all retained and introduced trees and other vegetation. 35. The applicant/owner shall continue to comply with all requirements of the City of Bend Fire Department. 36. The applicant/owner shall prohibit parking on one side of the private subdivision road through signage and provisions in the CC&Rs for the Mile Post One Subdivision. DURATION OF APPROVAL: 37. All conditions of approval and submission of an application for final plat approval for the lVIile Post One Subdivision shall occur within 2 (two) years from the date this decision becomes final, or an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code obtained, or this approval shall be void. Mailed this 29 th day of September, 2014 Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL APPEALED BY A PARTY. TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY TP-14-1024/SP-14-8/LM-14-17, Arrowood Page 48