HomeMy WebLinkAboutImprovement Agrmt - Phase V - TetherowDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-196(
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of May 14, 2008
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: May 6, 2008
FROM: Anthony Raguine Community Development Department
x4739
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration and Board signature of Document No. 2008-237, an improvement agreement for Pha: e V
of the Tetherow Destination Resort (IA -08-2).
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant, TD Cascade Highlands, LLC. has submitted an Improvement Agreement related to the
Phase V plat of the Tetherow Destination Resort (CU -04-94, M-05-2). Improvement Agreement IA -
08 -2 ensures that the infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, for this phase are completed to count ✓
standards. The financial assurance (bond) is for $2,222,744.40.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Board signature of Document No. 2008-237, an improvement agreement for the infrastructure
associated with Phase V of the Tetherow Destination Resort.
ATTENDANCE: Anthony Raguine
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
George A. Morris
Spring Capital Group
PO Box 10638
Eugene, OR 97740
Jim Albin
W&H Pacific
920 SW Emkay, Suite C100
Bend, OR 97702
Legal Counsel
Anthony Raguine
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
After Recording Return to:
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
147 NW Lafayette Street
Bend, OR 97701
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
(Roads and Utilities Phase 5)
This Improvement Agreement (Agreement), relating to the construction and installation of
certain required improvements (the "Roads and Utilities Required Improvements," as defined
below in Section 4) for the Cascade HighlandsfTetherow Destination Resort (the "Resort"), as
required in the subdivision approval in File No. TP -06-973 (the "Tentative Plat"), by and between
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon ("County") and
TD CASCADE HIGHLANDS, LLC, ("Owner").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Owner has developed previous phases of the Resort for which the first
three Phases of the Tentative Subdivision Plat were approved under TP -06-973; and
WHEREAS, the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements under the approval for the
next phase of the Tentative Plat have not been completed; and
WHEREAS, Owner has filed an application for a final subdivision plat for Phase 5 of the
Resort (the "Tetherow Phase 5 Final Plat"), File No. FPA 08-7, prior to the completion of the
Roads and Utilities Required Improvements; and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section 19.106.110 provides that Owner
may, in lieu of completing Roads and Utilities Required Improvements, enter into an agreement
with the County for the completion of the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements and
provide a good and sufficient form of security, to provide for the completion of the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is contingent upon the recording of the Tetherow Phase 5
Final Plat approved in File No. FPA -08-7 and that plat stating that it is subject to this agreement;
and
WHEREAS, Roads and Utilities Required Improvements under this Agreement do not
constitute a Public Improvement as the term is defined in ORS 279A.01(1)(aa); and
WHEREAS, the subdivision approval in TP -06-973 is exempt from ORS 92.305 to
92.945 for the reason that the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and implementing
ordinances are acknowledged under ORS 197.251; now, therefore,
IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES above mentioned, for and
in consideration of the mutual promise hereinafter stated, as follows:
Page 1 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
1 Recitals. The Recitals to this Agreement set forth above are hereby incorporated herein
as if fully set out, shall constitute contractual provisions and are not mere recitals.
2. Real Property Description. The real property subject to this Agreement, hereinafter the
subdivision "Real Property" is described as: approximately 44.35 acres within Township
18 South, Range 11 East, more particularly described on attached Exhibit A.
3. Exhibits. The exhibits listed below and attached to the Agreement are hereby
incorporated herein by reference:
3.1. Exhibit A — Legal description of Real Property.
3.2. Exhibit B -- List of Roads and Utilities Required Improvements and cost
estimates — submitted by the Owner.
3.3. Exhibit C — Deschutes County Tentative Plat approval, File No. TP -06-973
3.4. Exhibit D — Security - Bond No
3.5. Exhibit E - Contractor List per DCC 17.24.120(A)(1).
4. Identification of Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
4.1. Owner shall install and complete, or cause to be installed and completed, the
improvements listed in Exhibit B and required by the land use approval in TP -06-
973 set forth in Exhibit C to the extent that same remain to be completed ("Roads
and Utilities Required Improvements").
4.2. These improvements consist of roads, utilities and other necessary facilities
referred to in this agreement as "Roads and Utilities Required Improvements."
4.3. The final plat shall note and be subject to this Agreement.
5. Construction of Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
5.1. The Roads and Utilities Required Improvements shall be installed and completed
in accordance with the plans and construction specifications related thereto and
to any additional County and/or State of Oregon specifications.
5.2. Owner shall promptly repair any damage to existing and new facilities, within and
without the Real Property, which occurs during installation of the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements.
5.3. Owner shall cause the Required Improvement to be inspected by and receive
final written construction approval from County and/or the State of Oregon not
later than three (3) years from the recording of the Tetherow Phase 5 Final Plat
in File No. FPA 08-7 ("Completion Date").
Page 2 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
6. Warranty of Improvements.
6.1. Owner hereby warrants that the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements shall
remain free from defects in materials or workmanship and that the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements continue to meet County and/or State of Oregon
standards for twelve (12) months following the Completion Date and any
corrections ('Warranty Period").
6.2. Upon completion and approval of any portion of the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements, Owner shall obtain a bond or other security in favor of, and
reasonably acceptable to, the County in the amount of ten -percent (10%) of the
construction costs of such improvements to secure the warranty obligations
under this Section.
7. License to Enter and Remain on Property.
7.1. Owner hereby grants County and County's employees, engineers, consultants,
agents, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers license to come onto and
remain on the Real Property as necessary to make inspections of the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements.
7.2. If County determines that any portion of the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements have not been completed to County's satisfaction by the
Completion Date, County or its employees, engineers, consultants, agents,
contractors, subcontractors and suppliers may enter onto and remain on the Real
Property and may cause the applicable portion of the Roads and Utilities
Required Improvements to be installed and completed.
8. Right to Draw on Security.
8.1. Upon failure of the Owner to complete the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements to County's satisfaction by the Completion Date, County shall
notify Owner in writing of such failure.
8.1.1. Owner shall then have thirty (30) days to complete the Roads and Utilities
Required Improvements or that portion which is incomplete or
unsatisfactory.
8.1.4. Should Owner fail to complete the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements within the time period referred to in Section 8.1.1., then
County may cause incomplete or unsatisfactory Roads and Utilities
Required Improvements to be completed.
8.1.5. If County completes the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements,
County may draw upon the Security for any and all costs and expenses
incurred by County, in the completion of the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements.
8.2. For the purposes of this Agreement and access to any security offered and
accepted to secure Owner's performance, Owner's failure to complete the Roads
and Utilities Required Improvements shall include failure to install or have
installed any portion of the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements to County
Page 3 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
specifications, approved plans or applicable building specialty codes and failure
to complete any required inspections by the Completion Date.
9. No County Guarantee. County does not guarantee that any of the Roads and Utilities
Required Improvements referred to in this Agreement will be constructed, maintained or
operated.
10. License to Use Permits, Specifications and Plans.
10.1. If County determines that any portion of the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements have not been satisfactorily completed as specified by the
applicable Completion Date, Owner shall, upon request of the County, license
and assign to County all of Owner's, applicable Permits, plans, specifications,
shop drawings, instruments, permits and approvals, and other documents
necessary or useful in the completion of or related in any manner to the
applicable Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
10.2. Owner shall be responsible for providing within any contracts for supply of labor
and materials used in connection with constructing Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements, that such contract rights are assignable by Owner.
10.3. Upon such request, Owner shall deliver physical possession of such Permits,
plans, specifications, shop drawings, instruments, permits, approvals, and other
documents to the County.
10.4. County may sub -assign or license the rights referred to in this Section 10 for any
purpose without further approval from Owner.
11. No Third Party Beneficiaries.
11.1. County and Owner are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties
entitled to enforce its terms.
11.2. Nothing in this Agreement gives or provides any benefit or right, whether directly,
indirectly, or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually
identified by name in this Agreement and expressly described as intended
beneficiaries of this Agreement.
12. Restoration of Monuments. Owner shall restore any monument erected or used for
the purpose of designating a survey marker or boundary of any town, tract, plat or parcel
of land which monument is broken, damaged, removed or destroyed, during the course
of work provided for or anticipated by this Agreement, whether intentional or otherwise,
by the Owner or Owner's agents, employees or independent contractors.
13. Costs of Inspection. Owner shall pay to County the actual costs incurred by County in
the inspection of the completed Roads and Utilities Required Improvements plus any
fees, such as plan check fees and structural, electrical, plumbing and other specialty
codes inspection fees normally associated with the review and inspection of any
improvements on the Real Property.
Page 4 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
14. Security for Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
14.1. Owner shall provide the Bond as security for completion of the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements, issued in favor of the County by The Insco Dico
Group, deposited with the County in the amount of Two Million Two Hundred
Twenty -Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fourty-Four and 40/100 dollars
($2,222,744.40) attached hereto as Exhibit D (the "Security").
14.2. The amount of the Security represents one hundred and twenty percent (120%)
of the estimated costs, as set forth in Exhibit B, of completing the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements to County standards, as applicable.
14.3. As used herein, issuers of surety bonds individually or collectively may be
referred to as "Surety."
15. Owner's Obligation For Costs.
15.1. Owner expressly acknowledges, understands, and agrees that this Agreement
shall not relieve Owner from the obligation to complete and fully pay for the
Roads and Utilities Required Improvements and other costs and fees set forth in
this Agreement.
15.2. Should Owner fail to perform its responsibilities under this Agreement in any
manner, Owner agrees to compensate County for all costs related to Owner's
failure to perform its obligation to complete and warrant the Roads and Utilities
Required Improvements and pay costs and fees.
16. Release of Security or Obligation.
16.1. After the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements have been inspected and
approved by the County, County shall release the Bond or other security within
fifteen (15) calendar days provided Owner has procured the warranty security
required pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement.
16.2. In addition, the County may release portions of the security when appropriate.
16.3. Upon written request of Owner, County may release any of Owner's obligations
under the terms and conditions of this Agreement in writing upon Owner's
completion and County inspection and approval of any portion of the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements, provided County, in its sole discretion,
determines that adequate security remains in place for Owner completion of
Roads and Utilities Required Improvements in accordance with this agreement.
16.4. County's partial release of any portion of the Security shall not be construed as a
waiver of County's right to require full compliance with this Agreement and
Owner's obligation to satisfy any costs and expenses incurred in completion of
the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
16.5. If Owner has not yet obtained a bond or other security to guaranty its warranty
obligations pursuant to Section 6, then County Treasurer shall withhold from
Page 5 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
such funds an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the construction costs of
completing the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
17. Shortfall in Security.
17.1. If the amount available to be drawn from the Security is less than the costs and
expenses anticipated to be incurred, or actually incurred, by County, County may
apply the proceeds of the Security to the anticipated or actual costs and
expenses of completion of the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements
17.2. Owner shall be responsible and liable for the difference between the anticipated
or actual costs and expenses of completion and the amount of the remaining
security.
18. Incidental Costs. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if upon County's written
notice to Surety of Owner's failure to complete Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements, the proceeds of the Security are not remitted to County within ten (10)
days of demand for funds by the County, or the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements is not installed within a reasonable time period determined by County after
notice to the Surety, then County's costs of obtaining the proceeds of the surety Security
and/or completing the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements and all incidental costs
to the extent not covered by the Security, shall be added to the amount due County from
the Owner, and shall be paid to County by Owner, in addition to and with all other
amounts due hereunder.
19. Substandard Improvements.
19.1. Should the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements prove to be substandard
or defective within the twelve (12) month warranty period in Section 6 of this
Agreement, County shall notify Owner and/or the Surety of the warranty
obligation in writing of such substandard or defective Roads and Utilities
Required Improvements.
19.2. Owner and/or the Surety shall then have sixty (60) days to complete repair or
replacement of the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
19.3. In the event that the repair or replacement per Section 19.1. cannot reasonably
be completed within sixty (60) days, then the same shall be extended by such
period of time as is reasonably necessary so long as Owner and/or the Surety
promptly commence and thereafter diligently prosecute such repair or
replacement.
19.4. Should Owner and/or the Surety fail to complete repair or replacement of the
Roads and Utilities Required Improvements within the required time period,
County may remedy the defects and demand payment for such from Owner
and/or the Surety.
20. Successors in Interest.
20.1. The original of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Deschutes County
Clerk and shall be a condition and covenant that shall run with the Real Property.
Page 6 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
20.2. It is the intent of the parties that the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding
upon the parties to this Agreement, and subject to the terms contained in Section
21, their respective successors, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns,
and any other party deriving any right, title or interest in or to the Real Property,
including any person who holds such interest as security for the payment of any
obligation, including a mortgagee or other secured party in actual possession of
said Real Property by foreclosure or otherwise or any person taking title from
such security holder.
20.3. Upon completion of the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements, and the
expiration of the Warranty Period, County, upon request by Owner or any person
or persons owning a lot in the Tentative Plat, shall release a lot from the
condition and covenant subsisting under this Agreement.
21. Residential Lot Purchasers. Notwithstanding the terms of Section 20, the terms of this
Section shall apply to each residential lot ("Residential Lot") created from the Real
Property or platted in the subdivision and sold or transferred to a third party (each such
buyer or transferee and his or her successors and assigns is a "Residential Buyer") and:
21.1. Each such Residential Lot is conveyed free of any obligation to pay money or
complete the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements that may arise out of
this Agreement;
21.2. Each Residential Buyer or Transferee is under no obligation or burden to
complete the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
21.3. The recordation of this Agreement is for the purpose of putting Residential Buyer
or Transferee on notice of the Agreement's terms and that the County has no
obligation to construct the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements or any
portion of the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements nor does the
Agreement in anyway guarantee that any of the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements will be constructed; and
21.4. The Agreement conveys no right or right of action by any Residential Buyer or
Transferee against the County for any act or omission of the County, including
but not limited to, the County decisions or acts which result in the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements, or any part of the Roads and Utilities Required
Improvements, not being constructed.
22. Binding Authorization. By signature on this Agreement, each signatory, signing in a
representative, capacity certifies that the signer is authorized to sign the Agreement on
behalf of and bind the signer's principal.
23. Expiration.
23.1. Unless otherwise extended, this Agreement shall expire at the conclusion of the
Warranty Period or upon expiration of the Permits, whichever is earlier, or by the
express written release of Owner by County from this Agreement granted as part
of an approval for a change of use of the Real Property.
Page 7 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
23.2. Upon expiration, County shall provide Owner with a document in recordable
form, formally evidencing such expiration and the parties agree to execute such
document with fourteen (14) days of receipt of such document by the other party.
24. Survival. County's rights under this Agreement, including County's right to draw upon
Owner's security in whole or in part to pay the full costs and expenses of completing the
Roads and Utilities Required Improvements and repairs or replacements required herein
along with any licenses granted in this Agreement and any costs of enforcement of this
Agreement, shall survive the expiration of this Agreement.
25. No Agency.
25.1. It is agreed by and between the parties that Owner is not carrying out a function
on behalf of County, and County does not have the right of direction or control of
the manner in which Owner completes performance under this Agreement nor
does County have a right to exercise any control over the activities of the Owner.
25.2. Owner is not an officer, employee or agent of County as those terms are used in
ORS 30.265.
26. No Joint Venture or Partnership. County is not, by virtue of this Agreement, a partner
or joint venturer with Owner in connection with the Site plan or the Real Property, and
shall have no obligation with respect to Owner's debts or other liabilities of each and
every nature.
27. Liens.
27.1. Owner shall pay as due all claims for work done on and for services rendered or
material furnished to the Real Property and shall keep the Real Property free
from liens.
27.2. If Owner fails to pay any such claims or to discharge any lien, County may do so
and collect the cost from the Owner or Surety.
27.3. Such action by County shall not constitute a waiver of any right or remedy that
County may have on account of Owner's failure to complete the Roads and
Utilities Required Improvements or failure to observe the terms of this
Agreement.
28. Indemnification. Owner shall be responsible for any and all injury to any and all persons
or property caused directly or indirectly by reason of any and all activities of Owner under
this Agreement and on the Real Property; and further agrees to defend, indemnify and
save harmless County, its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims,
suits, actions, damages, costs, losses and expenses in any manner resulting from, arising
out of, or connected with any such injury.
29. Limitation of Liability. This Agreement is subject to the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS
30.260 to 30.300.
30. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event an action or suit or proceeding, including appeal
therefrom, is brought by any party arising directly and/or indirectly out of the provisions of
this agreement or the interpretation thereof, for Owner's failure to complete the Roads
Page 8 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
and Utilities Required Improvements or to observe any of the terms of this Agreement or
the interpretation thereof, County shall be entitled to recover, in addition to other sums or
performances due under this Agreement, reasonable attorney's fees and costs as the
court may adjudge in said action, suit, proceeding or appeal.
31. Waiver.
31.1. Waiver of the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement shall not
constitute the waiver of any other provision or of the Agreement.
31.2. No waiver may be enforced against the County unless such waiver is in writing
and signed by the County.
32. Compliance with provisions, requirements of Federal and State laws, statutes,
rules, regulations, executive orders and policies. Debt Limitation.
32.1. This Agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon counties set
forth in Article XI, Section 10, of the Oregon Constitution.
32.2. Any provisions herein, which would conflict with the law, are deemed inoperative
to that extent.
32.3. Additionally, Owner shall comply with any requirements, conditions or limitations
arising under the any Federal or State law, statute, rule, regulation, executive
order and policy applicable to the Roads and Utilities Required Improvements.
32.4. If this Agreement is in any manner construed to constitute the lending of the
County's credit or constitute a debt of County in violation of Article XI, Section 10,
of the Oregon Constitution, this Agreement shall be void.
33. No Inducement. No representations, statements, warranties have induced the making
and execution of this Agreement, or Agreements other than those herein expressed.
34. Governing Law.
34.1. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law.
34.2. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between County and
Owner that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and
conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Deschutes County for
the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim shall be brought in a federal
forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon.
34.3. TD Cascade Highlands, LLC by signing below, hereby consent to the in
personam jurisdiction of said courts. The parties agree that the UN Convention
on International Sales of Goods shall not apply.
35. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, the validity of the remaining
terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties
Page 9 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular term or
provision held void, invalid unenforceable.
36. Counterparts.
36.1. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, all of which when
taken together shall constitute one Agreement binding on all parties,
notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart.
36.2. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute on original.
36.3. If this Agreement is signed in counterpart, each counterpart shall be recorded as
provided herein for the recording of this Agreement and each counterpart shall
be noted on the recorded plat map.
37. Notice.
37.1. Expect as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any communications
between the parties hereto or notices to be given hereunder shall be given in
writing to Owner or County at the address or number set forth below or to such
other addresses or numbers as either party may hereafter indicate in writing.
37.2. Delivery may be by personal delivery, facsimile, or mailing the same, postage
prepaid.
37.3. Communication or notice by personal delivery shall be deemed delivered when
actually given to the designated person or representative.
37.4. Any communication or notice sent by facsimile shall be deemed delivered when
the transmitting machine generates receipt of the transmission. To be effective
against County, such facsimile transmission shall be confirmed by telephone
notice to County's Director of Administrative Services.
37.5. Any communication or notice mailed shall be deemed delivered five (5) days
after mailing. Any notice under this Agreement shall be mailed by first class
postage or delivered as follows:
To Owner:
Donald W. Woolley
TD Cascade Highlands, LLC
PO Box 10638
Eugene, OR 97440
Fax No. (541) 683-7364
To County:
County Administrator
Deschutes County Administration
1300 NW Wall Street, Ste 200
Bend, Oregon 97701
Fax No. 541-388-4752
38. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this
Agreement.
Page 10 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
39. Captions.
39.1. The captions contained in this Agreement were inserted for the convenience of
reference only.
39.2. Captions do not, in any manner, define, limit, or describe the provisions of this
Agreement or the intentions of the parties.
40. Merger Clause.
40.1. This Agreement and the attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement
between the parties and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous
negotiations and/or agreements among the parties, whether written or oral,
concerning the subject matters of this Agreement which are not fully expressed
herein.
40.2. All understandings and agreements between the parties and representations by
either party concerning this Agreement are contained in this Agreement.
40.3. This Agreement shall bind all parties and its terms may not be waived, altered,
modified, supplemented, or amended in any manner except by written instrument
signed by all parties.
40.4. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, any written waiver, consent,
modification or change shall be effective only when in writing and signed by the
parties in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given.
[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
Page 11 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No. 2008-237
DATED this day of , 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
MICHAEL M. DALY, Chair
ATTEST: DENNIS R. LUKE, Commissioner
Recording Secretary
STATE OF OREGON
County of Deschutes
) ss
TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared MICHAEL M. DALY, DENNIS R.
LUKE, and TAMMY BANEY the above-named Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes
County, Oregon and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County,
Oregon.
DATED this day of , 2007
Notary Public, State of Oregon
My Commission Expires:
Dated thisc?a o *tel L , 2000 OWNER:
TD CASCADE HIGHLANDS, LLC
STATE OF OREGON )
1,4A/E ) ss
County of Deschutes )
By 6
Its 2,,'t._- ---
OFFICIAL SEAL
GLORIA M VAJGHN
NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 384772
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV2, 2008
Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared 64/ae1 and
acknowledged the foregoing instrument as MQ4age.G of TD Cascade Hig lands, LLC.
/91/ •
Notarylic, State Oregori
My Commission Expires: "" / /d,?'
nt
DATED thisv?o" day of /L L , 2006
Page 12 of 12 — Tetherow Destination Resort Roads and Utilities Improvement Agreement — Deschutes
County Document No.
EXHIBIT "A"
PRELIMINARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FOR TE113ERO'W PHASE 5
IHAI PORTION OF DEVELOPMENI IRACI `AK' LOCAIED 114 IHE SOUIHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION I, IHE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECIION 2 AND IHE NORIHEAST QUARTER
OF SECIION 11, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 11 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,
DESCHUTES COUNIY, OREGON, AS RECORDED ON TETHEROW PHASE 1 PLAT, IN PLAT
CABINET H, PAGES 470 - 507 IN THE DESCHUIES COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT IHE EAST 16TH CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 2 AND 11, MARKED
BY A 2 1t2 INCH BRASS CAP, SAID POINT BEING ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID TETHEROW
PHASE 1 PLAT;
THENCE, ALONG IHE SAID BOUNDARY OF TETHEROW PHASE 1 PLAT THE FOLLOWING
FIVE COURSES:
SOUTH 88'54'45" WESI 50 57 FEET, TO A POINT;
NORIH 10'12'48" EAST 515.05 FEEI, IO A POINT;
SOUIH 88'37'49" EASI 50.14 FEET, IO A POINT;
NORIH 01'02'41" WEST 403.55 FEEI, TO A POINI;
NORTH 65'59'00" EAST 1374.61 FEET T'O A POINI ON IHE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY (BEING
40 FEET WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES I'0 IHE CENTERLINE) OF SKYLINE RANCH
ROAD, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT OF NON -TANGENCY WIIH A CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 3026.00 FEET, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 56'19'06" WEST;
IHENCE, LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF IEIHEROW PHASE 1 PLAT ALONG SAID CURVE TO
THE LEFT, ALONG THE WESIERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SKYLINE RANCH ROAD, IHROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'39'11", AN ARC DISIANCE OF 192.93 FEET (IHE CHORD OF WHICH
BEARS SOUIH 35'30'29" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 192.89 FEEI) TO A POINT OF IANGENCY;
THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG IHE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SKYLINE RANCH ROAD
IHE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES:
SOUTH 37'20'04" EASI 349.80 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
ALONG THE ARC OF A 360.00 FOOI RADIUS CURVE IO IHE RIGHT, IHROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 33'37'07", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21123 FEET (IHE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
SOUTH 20'31'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 208.21 FEET) TO A POINT OF IANGENCY;
SOUTH 03'42'5T' EASI 112 02 FEEI, IO A POINI OF CU'RVAIURE;
ALONG THE ARC OF A 104000 FOOI RADIUS CURVE IO IHE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENIRAL
ANGLE OF 14'18'38", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 259.76 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
SOUTH 10'52'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 259 09 FEET) IO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
A -I
SOUTH 18'01'36" EASI 194.64 FEEI, TO A POINT;
IHENCE, LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SKYLINE RANCH ROAD, SOUTH
71'58'24" WESI 14326 FEEI, IO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF GOLF IRACT 'D' AS
RECORDED ON SAID IEIHEROW PHASE 1 PLAT;
THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY OF GOLF TRACI 'D' THE FOLLOWING
THIRTEEN COURSES:
NORIH 00'15'.30" WESI 18107 FEEI, TO A POINT;
NORTH 51'03'58" WEST 133.12 FEET, IO A POINI;
NORIH 66'42'51" WESI 150 11 FEET, TO A POINI;
NORTH 8I'36'08" WESI 11149 FEEI, TO A POINT;
SOUIH 83°56'34" WESI 111.71 FEEI, IO A POINI;
SOUTH 5712'13" WEST 79 96 FEET, TO A POINI;
SOUTH 31'53'11" WESI 30533 FEEI, TO A POINI;
SOUTH 43'29'23" WEST 232.25 FEEI, TO A POINI;
SOUIH 57°55'27" WESI 15140 FEEI, TO A POINI;
SOUIH 38°29'40" WEST 566.69 FEEI, 10 A POINI;
SOUTH 24'53'06" WES 1188 00 FEET, IO A POINT;
NORIH 61'48'47" WESI 200.00 FEEI, TO A POINT;
SOUIH 11'23'06" WEST 195 78 FEET, TO A POINT;
THENCE, LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF GOLF TRACI 'D', NORIH 89'19'39" WEST 95.54
FEEI, TO A POINI ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID IETHEROW PHASE 1 PLAT;
IHENCB, NORTH 00'40'21" EASI 689.17 FEEI ALONG SAID BOUNDARY OF IEIHEROW
PHASE 1 PLAT, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
r
8" SANITARY
SEWER (TYP.)
1" WATER SERVICE (TYP.)
SANITARY SEWER
MANHOLE (TYP.)
8" WATER MAIN (TYP.)
CATCH \\
BASIN
(TYP.)
4" SS
SERVICE
(TYP.)
STORM
PIPING
(TYP.)
2"AC ON 6" AB (
DESIGNED BY JWA CHECKED Br. MA
j
\\
` .1 1
- MI6 0-1110
TD CASCADE HIGHLANDS, LLC
TETHEROW RESORT
PHASE 5 BONDING EXHIBIT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE C3
OR
DRAWN BY: kA APPROVED Br "EF
LAST EDIT: 4/90/1008 PLOT DATE:
1/J0/b7
DATE
BY
REV/r
RENSION
CAT
APPR
SCALE:
1%450'
PROJECT NO. DRAWING FILE NAME
33849 3.3$88—rand—ecce plon.0
SHEET ##
WGZ
. _"`
ITEM
NO.
DESCRLPT1ON
TETHEROW RESORT
PHASE C3
STREET AND UTILITY BID SCHEDULE
APRIL 2008
ESTIMATED UNIT
QNTY. PRICE
TOTAL
1. CLEARING AND GRUBBING INCLUDING OFF-SITE DISPOSAL. I1.3 AC $ 5,500.00 $5,:'00.00
2. FURNISH AND APPLY CONSTRUCTION WATER. 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
3. UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT 4,256 CY $ 12.00 $51,172.00
ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUAN 1TIIES ARE BASED ON (80% of 5,320 CY)
IN-PLACE VOLUMES, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT FOR EXPANSION,
SHRINKAGE, SUBEXCAVATION OR SETTLEMENT. 40,404 CY $ 6.00 $242,424.00
THE ESTIMATED QUANTITY WTI .i BE THE FINAL PAY QUANTITY,
UNLESS A CHANGE ORDER IS EXECUTED FOR A CHANGE IN THE (80% OF 50,505 CY FROM BID ITEMS #17 & #18)
WORK SCOPE.
ESTIMATED EXCAVATION: 5,320 CY, INCLUDES ALL ROADS WITHIN
PHASE AS WELL AS FIRE ACCESS ROAD.
ESTIMATED EMBANKMENT:487 CY, INCLUDES ALL ROADS WITHIN
PHASE AS WELL AS FIRE ACCESS ROAD,
4. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT STANDARD 16" 410 LF $ 9.20 $3,772.00
VERTICAL CURD, IN GATE AREA, INCLUDING BASE ROCK UNDER CURB
PER DESCHUTES COUNTY STD. DWG. 2-2.
5. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT 7,030 LF $ 7.75 $54,4;2.50
LOW PROFILE MOUNTABLE CURB INCLUDING BASE ROCK
UNDER CURB PER ODOT DRAWING NO. RD 700.
6. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT 3/4" MINUS 12,782 SY $ 4.90 $62,6 1.80
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 6" MINIMUM COMPACTED
DEPTH FOR STREETS.
7. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT 2" MINIMUM 12,782 SY $ 7.10 $90,7; 2.20
COMPACTED DEPTH, CLASS C ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT FOR STREETS.
8. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT VARIABLE WIDTH 236 SF $ 4.75 $1,121.00
ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING (2" DEPTH W/ 6" BASE) INCLUDING
GATE/PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
9. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT VARIABLE WIDTH
CONCRETE SURFACING FOR HYDRANT PADS PER CITY OF BEND STD.
DETAIL SHEET 4-8.
10. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL STREET NAME AND
STOP SIGNS PER COUNTY STANDARDS.
11. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL NO PARKING/FIRE LANE SIGNS.
515 SF
5.20 $2,673.00
I EA $ 600.00 $600.00
26 EA $ 200.00 $5,20 .00
STREET CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $545,231.50
P:\TD Cascade Highlands LLC\033849\Design\Cost Estimates\33.849-LAND-Contract Bid SChed...` ..-� o C3.xls
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
TETHEROW RESORT
PHASE C3
STREET AND UTILITY BID SCHEDULE
APRIL 2008
ESTIMATED UNIT
QNTY. PRICE
TOTAL
12. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT
STANDARD CATCH BASIN PER DESCHUTES COUNTY
DRAWING NO. 3-3.
13. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" C900 PVC STORM DRAIN,
INCLUDING TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL.
14. FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" C900 PVC STORM DRAIN,
INCLUDING TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL.
15. FURNISH MATERIALS AND PLACE ODOT CLASS 100 RIPRAP
STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PROTECTIONS
16. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT GRATED STORM
OVERFLOW INLET (ODOT INLET TYPE D) PER ODOT DRAW. RD370
17. EXCAVATE GRADE, SHAPE, AND CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
INFILTRATION BASINS NOT INCLUDING NORTH RAVINE.
18. EXCAVATE GRADE, SHAPE, AND CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE
INFILTRATION BASINS INCLUDING NORTH RAVINE.
19. FILL, GRADE, SHAPE, AND CONSTRUCT FILLS
INCLUDING LOT FILLS AND SKYLINE RANCH ROAD BERM.
15 EA $ 930.00 813,91i0.00
630 LF $ 25.00 $15,710.00
285 LF 5 32.00 $9,1 '--0.00
1 LS $4,000.00 $4,0 )0.00
1 EA 5 1,500.00 $1,5)0.00
9,086 CY $ 6.00 $54,516.00
41,419 CY $ 6.00 $248,514.00
8,698 CY $ 6.00 $52, 18.00
DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 8399,538.00
20. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (0-6FT. DEPTH).
21. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (6-8 FT. DEPTH).
22. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (8-10 FT. DEPTH).
23. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (10-12 FT. DEPTH).
24. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (12-14 FT. DEPTH).
25. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (14-16 FT. DEPTH).
26. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (16-18 FT. DEPTH).
P:\TD Cascade Highlands LLC\033049\Design\Cost Estimates\33849-LAND-Contract Bid Scheduie ,. r..ASE C3,xlS
9 LF $ 36.00 $324.00
40 LF $ 44.00 $1,- 60.00
51 LF $ 50.00 52,:50.00
490 LF $ 64.00 $31, 60.00
296 LF $ 70.00 820,`20.00
316 LF $ 75.00 $23,"'00.00
335 LF $ 81.00 $27, 35.00
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
TETHEROW RESORT
PHASE C3
STREET AND UTILITY BID SCHEDULE
APRIL 2008
ESTIMATED UNIT
QNTY. PRICE
TOTAL
27. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (18-20 FT. DEPTH).
28. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (20-22 FT. DEPTH).
29. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (22-24 FT. DEPTH).
30. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING
TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (24 FT. PLUS DEPTH).
31. FURNISH AND INSTALL 4" SAN. SEWER SERVICE,
INCLUDING TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL.
32. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT STANDARD SEWER
MANHOLE, 48" ID, PER CITY OF BEND STD. DETAIL 3-3.
33. SANITARY SEWER STANDARD 48" ID MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION,
IN EXCESS OF 8 FEET, VERTICAL DEPTH.
483 LF $ 92.00 $44,436.00
422 LF $ 105.00 $44,310.00
524 LF $ 116.00 $60,744.00
331 LF $ 133.00 844,013.00
I,306 LF $ 52.00 $67,912.00
2I EA $ 2,300.00 $48,3.)0.00
227 VLF $ 220.00 849,940.00
34. SANITARY SEWER TESTING PER CITY OF BEND SPECS. 1 LS 50 0 0 85,000.00
SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL $472,2:14.00
P:\TD Cascade Highlands LLC\o 33949\Design\Cost Estimates\3J849-LAND-Contract Bid Schedule a—c C3.x1s
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
TETHEROW RESORT
PHASE C3
STREET AND UTILITY BID SCHEDULE
APRIL 2008
ESTIMATED UNIT
QNTY. PRICE
TOTAL
35. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT 8" CLASS 52 DUCTILE 3,340 LF $ 49.00 $163,(,60.00
IRON WATER MAIN, INCLUDING TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING,
AND BACKFILL.
36. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT 6" D.1. WATER LINE,
INCLUDING TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING AND BACKFILL.
152 LF $ 45.00 $6,840.00
37. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT 1" COPPER WATER 1,313 LF $ 23.00 $30,1)9.00
SERVICE INCLUDING CORP STOP, TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING
AND BACKFILL.
38. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL WATER SERVICE METER
BOX, METER STOPS, ANGLE VALVES, COUPLINGS, JUMPERS,
TAIL PIECES, AND APPURTENANCES PER CITY OF BEND
STD. DETAIL 4-6.
40. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL WATER SERVICE METER
BOX, METER STOPS, ANGLE VALVES, COUPLINGS, JUMPERS,
TAIL PIECES, BACKFLOW DEVICE, AND APPURTENANCES
PER CITY OF BEND STD. DETAIL 4-5. (1" COMMERICIAL)
39 EA $ 500.00 $19,f: )0.00
2 EA $ 700.00 $1,4)0.00
41. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL WATER SERVICE METER 1 EA $ 2,000.00 $2,0 )0.00
BOX, METER STOPS, ANGLE VALVES, COUPLINGS, JUMPERS,
TAIL PIECES, BACKFLOW DEVICE, AND APPURTENANCES
PER CITY OF BEND STD. DETAIL 4-5. (1.5" COMMERICIAL)
42. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL WATER SERVICE METER
BOX, METER STOPS, ANGLE VALVES, COUPLINGS, JUMPERS,
TAIL PIECES, BACKFLOW DEVICE, AND APPURTENANCES
PER CITY OF BEND STD. DETAIL 4-5. (2" COMMERICIAL)
43. FURNISH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCT FIRE HYDRANT
ASSEMBLY COMPLETE IN PLACE PER CITY OF BEND STD.
DETAILS 4-7 AND 4-8, WITHOUT BOLLARDS.
44. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL 8" GATE VALVE
ASSEMBLY PER CITY OF BEND STD. DETAIL 4-2.
45. FURNISH MATERIALS AND INSTALL 6" GATE VALVE
ASSEMBLY PER CITY OF BEND STD. DETAIL 4-2.
46. FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" X 8" X 8" TEE AND MECHANICAL
RESTRAINT SYSTEM PER CITY OF BEND SPECIFICATIONS.
P:\TD Cascade Highlands LLC\033849\Design\Cost Estimates\J 3849-LAND-Contzact Bid SCh¢L___ CJ.xls
1 EA
$ 2,500.00 $2,5)0.00
10 EA $ 1,700.00 $17,0110.00
8 EA $ 900.00 $7,2110.00
10 EA $ 630.00 $6,300.00
2 EA $ 560.00 $1,1::0.00
F-. , :•:
DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFIC,
" L�.,1 ! 2006Lu�� ,i .i
FILE NUMBER: TP -06-973 Jij {
APPLICANT: i
Arrowood Development, LLC
Attention: Jim Barrett
250 NW Franklin Avenue, Suite 203
Bend, OR 97701 •
Telephone: (541) 322-5902
PROPERTY. OWNER: Cascade Highlands, LLC
Attention: Dike Dame
1308 NW Everett Street
Portland, OR 97209
Telephone: '(503) 227-6593
APPLICANT'S
REPRESENTATIVE: Schwabe, Williamson, & Wyatt
Attention: Tia Lewis
549 SW Mill View Way, Suite 100
Bend, OR 9770
REQUEST:
011121,p
/('
esoitos
c0 Dtwl
'ZZ9Zsai
JS
Tentative Plat (TP) approval as part of the Cascade
Highlands Destination Resort (CU -04-94, M-05-2/AD 05.-
10). The TP proposes Tots for single-famity dwellings,
multi -family dwellings, over -night accommodations,
commercial tracts, and recreational facility tracts, as well
as appropriate rights-of-way and easements for
infrastructure.
STAFF CONTACT: Anthony Raguine, Associate Planner
1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Cascade Highlands Destination Resort Master Plans, as outlined in County File.
Nos. CU -04-94 and M-05-2.
Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, Subdivision Ordinance
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans :and Master
Development Plans
Sections 17.16.030, .080, .100
Chapter 17.36, Design Standards
Sections 17.36.20, .050, .060, .080, .100, .120, .130, .140, .150,
.160, .170, .180, .190, .200, .210, .220, .230, .250, .260, .270,
.280, .300
Chapter 17.44, Park Development
Section 17.44.010.
Chapter 17.48. Design and .Construction Specifications
Sections 17.48.100, .160, .180
Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code, Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning
Ordinance
Section 19.106.020
Hearings. Officer Decision (fP-06-973)
Page 1 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 35
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
• A. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 19200 Century Drive, Bend, OR
97702, and is also identified on County Assessor's Maps 18-11, tax lots 100
and 120.
B ZONING: The subject property Is zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR10), within
a Destination Resort (DR) overlay.
C. REQUEST: The applicant requests Tentative Plat (TP) approval as part of the
Cascade. Highlands Destination Resort (CU -04-94, M-05-2/AD 05-10). The TP
proposes lots for single-family dwellings, multi -family dwellings, over -night
accommodations, commercial tracts, and recreational facility tracts, as well as
appropriate rights-of-way and easements for infrastructure. The resort would
include 379 single-family dwelling lots, 7 multi -family dwelling tracts, 3 visitor -
oriented accommodation/commercial tracts, 25 common area tracts, 4 golf
tracts, and 1 park tract,
•
D. • SITE DESCRIPTION: 'The 698 -acre parcel is located on the north side of
Century Drive, and is currently undeveloped.' The topography generally slopes
toward Century Drive. A ridgeline rises approximately 80 feet from Century
Drive.
The property includes vegetation that is typical of the Central Oregon region:
ponderosa pine, mountain laurel, manzanita, bunch grass, juniper and sage
brush. A majority of the property was heavily damaged during the Awbrey Hell
fire in 1990, which destroyed homes and vegetation in the hills to the west of
Bend. According to testimony in the record, regeneration has occurred on
portions of the property, including areas that border the Broken Top and First
on the Hill subdivisions to the east. The regenerated areas include ponderosa
pine with heights ranging from knee high to 25 feet in areas located near water
sources. Areas not affected by the fire have mature vegetation. According to
testimony in the record, there are approximately 400 ponderosa pine located on
the property, and approximately three-quarters of those trees are located in the
swale areas located near Broken Top's sixth hole and in an area to the east of
the proposed Skyline Ranch Road/Metolius Drive roundabout, within a
proposed road right-of-way. Neighbors stated that the property has provided
browse for deer and elk, and. has a variety of animal life, including hawks,
woodpeckers, golden eagles, badgers and mountain lions.
E. SURROUNDING USES: The site Is surrounded primarily by residential uses to
the north, east, and south. To the north is The Highlands at Broken Top PUD.
The resort site is bordered on the. east by the City of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary..Along this boundary Is an undeveloped 14acre parcel owned by the
Bend Metro Parks. and Recreation District, the First on the Hill Subdivision, and
the Broken Top PUD. The Braebum subdivision and the Best Western Entrada
Lodge are located south of Century Drive. The resort is bordered on the. west
by undeveloped lands held by the United States Forest Service (USFS).
11n prior decisions, the subject property Is described as being comprised of 706 acres. It appears
that the subject property was recently partitioned, and the Hearings Officer assumes that the
subject property is one of the two parcels created from the 708 -acre parent parcel.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
. Page 2 of 35
Exhibit C
Paee 2 of 35
F. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The Conceptual Master Plan approval decision is
dated January 5, 2005. After the Conceptual Master Plan was approved, a
request for reconsideration (RC -05-01) was applied for by the owner to clarify
findings and a Condition of Approval pertaining to financial performance
requirements with respect to the required ovemight lodging. The Hearings
Officer issued a decision on the reconsideration on . February 22, 2005,
modifying findings for DCC 19.106.050(6)(8) and 19.106.060(AX4), and
modifying Condition of Approval No. 11. That decision was not appealed.
The Final Master Plan was approved on September 29, 2005. Two timely
appeals. of the IMP approval were filed. On December 14, 2005, the Hearings
. Officer issued a decision denying one appeal (the Kaufman appeal) and
Modifying the director's dedslon with respect to the second appeal (the power
lines appeal). The Hearings Officer's decision was appealed to the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC). On December 28, 2005, the BOCC issued an
Order. (No. 2005-116) declining to hear the appeal. Consequently, .the Hearings
Officer's decision became final.
The applicant applied for a Partition of the subject property (MP-06-
01)(modified by MA -06-7) to divide the property into 2 parcels. The Partition
was approved on March 6, 2006 and the Final Plat was approved May 9, 2006.
The TP application at issue in this decision was submitted on May 19, 2006.
G. AGENCY RESPONSES: The Planning Division mailed notice of the proposed
land use to numerous affected agencies. Those comments are summarized In
the August 7, 2006 staff report and are not reiterated here. To the extent those
comments are pertinent to the relevant approval criteria, they are addressed in
the findings included in this decision.
H. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit dated June 20, 2006.
The applicant posted the notice of land use action sign on that same date. The
applicant has satisfied the posted notice requirements of DCC 22.23.030(B).
Prior to the public hearing, the Planning Division sent notice of the proposed
tentative plan (tentative plan or TP) to a majority of the property owners within
250 feet of the subject site. However, at the hearing, a neighbor testified that
not all property owners within the notice area were sent notice. Staff
investigated and discovered that a few property owners within the notice area
had inadvertently been left off of the notice list. The Hearings Officer extended
.the time for comments to be Included in the record to accommodate testimony
from those neighbors and others.
In addition to the applicant's representatives, the following persons testified at
the hearing and/or presented written testimony regarding the application:
Richard Kaufman
Linda Sefferman
Linda Mack & Richard Mack
Dee VanRensallaer
Shane Austin
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Sophie Bielefeld
Elizabeth Clark & Christopher Clark
John Donahue
John McClennan
Pamela Keefer
Page 3 of 35
Exhibit C
PaaP 'A of �5
I. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was deemed complete on June 29, 2006.
The 1501h day on which the County must take final action on this application is
November 26, 2006. This decision Is issued within the 150 -day deadline set
out in ORS 216.417.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
INTRODUCTION
This application is the latest in a series of land use applications submitted to develop a
destination resort on property planned for that use. The .conceptual master plan
approval (CMPXCU 04-94, modified by RC 05-1) set out the types of uses that may be
developed on the property, conditions of approval .to mitigate adverse impacts
identified during the CMP process, and provided the decisional framework• for more
detailed •plans. Following the CMP, the applicant subrhitted a final master plan
(FMP)(M 05-2, affirmed AD 05-10). The FMP clarified of some aspects of the CMP
'such as potential developed recreational uses, the location of major utility connections,
.and set out the specific types of wildlife mitigation that the applicant and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife had agreed to. In this application; the applicant
proposes to divide the property into individual lots and development tracts to
accommodate the proposed uses. The proposed .subdivision must be consistent with
the approved CMP and FMP, and must also satisfy relevant subdivision approval
criteria.
CONFORMANCE WiTH THE APPROVED CMP and FMP:
FINDING: The tentative subdivision plan depicts areas proposed for single family
residential development, townhouse/multi-family development, a hotel complex and
open space and recreation areas. These areas were generally identified and approved
for those purposes in CMP and FMP decisions. The findings for each condition are as
follows. The relevant conditions and the decisions they pertain to are identified in
parentheses.
A. All development in the resort shall require tentative plat approval through
Title 17 of the County Code, the County Subdivision/Partition Ordinance,
and/or Site Plan Review through Title 19 of the County Code, the Bend
Urban Growth .Boundary Ordinance. (CMP Condition #1; FMP Condition
#2)
FINDING: The applicant acknowledges its obligation to obtain tentative plan approval
for the phased development. This tentative plan application includes all of the single-
family lots and multi -family residential tracts, the tracts for the over -night
accommodations, as well as the tracts for the commercial and recreational facilities.
Additional site plan applications would be submitted for particular uses subject to site
review, including the over -night accommodations, the commercial facilities and the golf
course buildings. Additional tentative plans may be filed In the future for further
subdivision of multi -family residential and over -night lodging tracts (e.g., condominium
development.)
B. The applicant shall provide a signed formal agreement with the Clty of
Bend for connection to the City of Bend sewage treatment plant. A copy of
the signed contract with the City of Bend shall be submitted with the Final
Master Plan application. (CMP Condition #2) '
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 4 of 35 .
Exhibit C
Pa2e 4 of 35
•FINDING: The FMP approval includes a "License and Water and Sewer Service
Agreement between the City of Behd and Cascade Highlands Limited Partnership'
(Water/Sewer Agreement) which was negotiated and executed by the Applicant's
predecessor in interest. The Water/Sewer Agreement runs with the land and binds
both the Applicant and the City of Bend to its terms. This condition has been satisfied,
and will continue to apply to the property.
C. Road Locations and Design
1. Road Improvement plans shall be approved by the Road Department
prior to construction.
2. Skyline Ranch Road and Metollus Drive shall be designed and
constructed to the standards detailed In the approved Vehicle and
Pedestrian Access Plan (CMP ammo.
3. The round -about proposed for the intersection of Skyline Ranch
Road and Metolius Drive shall be designed and constructed
according to ODOT standards.
4. Lots within the resort shall not have direct access from Skyline
Ranch Road or Metolius Drive.
5. The internal road system shall be Improved to standards consistent
with the approved Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Plan for private
roads. (CMP Condition #3; FMP Condition #3.)
FINDING: The applicant proposes to construct internal roads to standards that are
generally consistent with the standards and conditions. imposed In prior decisions.
Those prior decisions include some arguably inconsistent standards that, to the extent
possible, are resolved in this decision. To minimize confusion, the findings with
respect to compliance with the CMP/FMP conditions are organized by Road name
and/or road type.
Skyline Ranch Road. Skyline Ranch Road is designated as a collector in the county's
Transportation Systems Plan (TSP). Developed segments of the road are located in
the cbunty and are subject to its jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to establish an
extension of Skyline Ranch Road through the subject property to Intersect with Century
Drive at its southern boundary. Within the subject propeity,.Skyline Ranch Road and
Metolius Drive serve as the collectors from internal roadways. No individual .lots are
permitted to access directly onto Skyline Ranch Road.
As proposed, and as depicted on, the applicant's tentative plan, Skyline Ranch Road is
to be developed in accordance with AASHTO standards, as amplified and clarified in
the applicant's CMP Application Exhibit V ("CMP Exhibit V"). Those approved
standards require a 60 -foot right-of-way, either 32 -foot or 42 -foot road surfaces to
accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle lanes, and road design speeds of no greater
than 30 miles per hour: See CMP Exhibit V, Typical Cross Sections A and B. None of.
the prior applications specifically identified standards for the Century Drive/Skyline
Ranch Road intersection. Accordingly, a condition of approval is imposed to require
that the Skyline Ranch Road intersection with Century Drive shall, at a minimum,
comply with AASHTO and county collector approach standards. The final road designs
must be approved by the county road department!
!To the extent the FMP Includes conditions that•include arguably different requirements, this
decision Is based on the road design approved and conditioned in the CMP.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 5 of 35
Exhibit C
Paste 5 of 35
The intersection of Skyline Ranch Road with Metolius Drive in the center of the
property is to .be constructed as a roundabout in accordance with ODOT standards..
The .City of Bend Transportation Planner (Bend Transportation) requested that a
condition of approval be imposed to require that roundabout standards be coordinated
between the City and ODOT. As the applicant and County staff note, however, this
road is located within the County, and is not subject to City road standards, other than
those that are agreed to by the applicant. The Hearings Official concludes that ODOT
roundabout design standards are adequate to assure safe transport through the
development, in part because of the proposed 30 mph design speed: A condition of
approval is imposed to require that the roundabout be constructed in accordance with
ODOT standards and the proposed design speed, consistent with the conditions of
approval imposed in the CMP and FMP decisions.
The applicant's TP drawings for roads are consistent with the approved CMP. A
condition of approval is imposed to require that the final road design for Skyline Ranch
Road be approved by the County.road department.
Skyliners Road. Skyliners Road Is a minor arterial located within the City of Bend and
is under the City's jurisdiction. 1t is not adjacent to the subject property, although the
parties agree that some traffic generated by the development will use Skyliners Road
via Its intersection with Skyline Ranch Road, which extends from the property's north
boundary through the Highlands at Broken Top development. Bend Transportation has
stated that it will require road dedications and cross-sections constructed to City
standards, including a 50 -foot to centerline right-of-way dedications, and 52 -foot cross-
sections, with tuming and bicycle lanes for Skyliners Road.
The applicant and County staff respond that neither the CMP nor the FMP require that
the applicant construct off-site improvements to Skyliners Road. The Hearings Officer
agrees, and also notes that the City entered Into a 2000 Development Agreement with
the applicant's predecessor -in -interest and the County, where all off-site mitigation for
City streets within City limits was identified. See CMP Application Exhibit F. That
agreement provides that no other off-site road improvements to City roads would be
required as long as the development proposed by the applicant is equal to or Less than
the density and types of uses described in that agreement. The CMP decision relied on
that agreement to establish the required City road improvements. The required
improvements do not include improvements to Skyliners Road. Accordingly, the
development proposed in this tentative plan, which falls within the parameters set out
in the development agreement and the CMP, does not require additional off-site
improvements to City streets within City limits.
Metollus Drive. Metollus Drive is designated as a collector road on both City and
County TSPs. It runs through both City and County lands. The segment of Metollus
Drive that runs through the Broken Top PUD is a private road located within City limits.
The applicant proposes to construct the internal segment of Metolius Drive to the
,standards approved In CMP Exhibit V (including 30 mph design speeds). The County
has agreed to accept that segment of Metolius Drive as a public road once it is
constructed to County road standards and dedicated to the public.
As reflected in the findings for Skyline Ranch Road, the proposed Skyline Ranch
Road/Metolius Drive roundabout shall be constructed to ODOT standards with a 30
mph design speed. No residential driveway access is allowed directly onto Metolius
Drive.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 6 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 6 of 3S
Ip the CMP application and in the 2000 development agreement, the applicant agreed
to construct improvements to the Metolius/Washington .Drives intersection, which is
'located within City limits. The Hearings Officer concludes that those improvements
must be consistent with City standards and the development agreement. The segment
of Metollus Drive located within the development must be constructed to the standards
approved in the CMP, except where Metolius Driveconnectsto the Broken Top PUD
segment of Metolius Drive. There, the road shall be designed to minimize traffic
hazards and provide a smooth transition between the segment of Metollus. Drive
located on the subject property and the segment of Metolius Drive located within the
Broken Top PUD and City limits. A condition of approval is imposed to assure that the
County road department approves the final road design.
An attorney representing the Broken Top Community Association requested that a
condltion of approval be Imposed to require that no public or construction access be
allowed on Metollus Drive until the road has been constructed to standards acceptable
to the City, the applicant and the Broken Top Community Association and that the
private road segment had been accepted by the City as a public road. County staff
notes that as the proposed circulation plan relies heavily on Metollus Drive as a
through road,' the private segment of Metolius Drive must be accepted as a public road
by the City, before the final subdivision plan is approved. Staff recommended that the
Hearings Officer impose a condition of approval to that effect.
The applicant responds that It does not intend to allow construction traffic on Metollus
Drive, in part because the private segment is not constructed to carry heavy and wide
loads. The applicant's. representatives stated that it will agree to a condition of
approval that prohibits construction traffic on Metollus Drive. With respect to other
traffic, the applicant notes that it cannot prevent through travel on a public collector
street, nor can it demand that the City accept jurisdiction over any roads.
Other persons testified that they did not agree with the County and City's designation
of Metolius Drive as a collector street. They noted that the road is located within a
residential area and many children live within nearby subdivisions. In addition, they
echo the concerns of the Broken Top PUD homeowners regarding construction traffic
and its impact on safety and residential property values.
The CMP and FMP approvals were premised on the use of Metolius Drive as a
collector street within and through the development As noted above, the street is
designated as a collector on the City and County TSP.s and the anticipated Impact of
the proposed development. is consistent with that designation. Because the collector
designation was considered and applied during the TSP approval process, those
decisions cannot be revisited here. •
However, whether and how the segment of Metolius Drivelocated within the Broken
Top PUD. can be used as a public road, despite its private road status, is another
question. The applicant agreed to offsite improvements to Metollus Drive.in 2000 and
again during the. CMP and FMP process, presumably because It recognized that
development of the project at destination resort densities would result in a significant
increase in the use of that road. Therefore, the Hearings Officer agrees with staff and
the Broken Top PUD Community Association that some assurances need to be given
that Metolius Drive is a public road that serves the function provided for in the City and
County TSPs. The Hearings Officer understands the .applicant's predicament --it
cannot force the City to accept a public street --however, because its application is
predicated on the use of Metollus Drive as a public street, adequate access must be
assured before the final subdivision- plat is approved. Accordingly, a condition of
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 7 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 7 of 35
approval. is imposed to require that the applicant demonstrate that the segment of
Metolius Drive located within the Broken Top PUD is accepted as a public road prior to
finai subdivision approval.3
Century: Drive. Century Drive is designated as a minor arterial on the County TSP.
Until recently, Century Drive was under ODOTs jurisdictlon; it is now under the City's
jurisdiction even though the 'segment of the road that fronts the subject property is
located outside the Incorporated City limits. In the CMP and FMP, the County and the
applicant agreed •that certain Century Drive/Skyline Ranch Road intersection
• improvements would need to be constructed to address the impact of the development
on traffic on Century Drive_ Conditions of approval were imposed to require an
eastbound left -turn lane, a west bound. right -turn lane, and to provide adequate
queuing to and from the property. See CMP application Exhibit E (IGttleson
Transportation Analysis) and CMP Exhibit V.
•
•
During this proceeding, the County road department provided written testimony that
some of the needed ,road' improvements, especially along Century .Drive, may not fit
within the standard right-of-way width and requested that a condition' of approval be
imposed to require additional transportation related dedications to assure that all road
improvements are located within public rights-of-way. The applicant objected to a
blanket requirement that additional land be dedicated to accommodate additional
transportation improvements, but agreed to work with the County roadmaster to craft a
condition of approval that would be acceptable to both parties. That condition of
approval is found at Condition 22, below. It is modified somewhat from the agreed
upon language to reflect that some of the roads at issue may be under other than
County jurisdiction.
Other internal Roads. The applicant proposes that other internal roads, including
Hosmer Lake Drive, Broken Top Drive, and an as -yet unnamed eastern loop road be
private roads developed to low -speed residential traffic in 'accordance with CMP Exhibit
V and the CMP and FMP approvals.
Based on the findings and conditions of approval set out above, the Hearings Officer
concludes that the proposed tentative plan is consistent with CMP Condition 3 and
FMP Condition 3, as clarified.
D. The applicant shall submit a formal signed agreement with the City of
Bend for water service to the resort as part of the FMP application. (CMP -
Condition #4)
FINDING: The Water/Sewer Agreement between the.Applicant's predecessor and the
City of Bend was submitted with the FMP approval. This Agreement details the
appiicant's and the City's obligations with respect to the provision of water and sewer
service by the City to the'destination resort.
E. The applicant shall designate the location of all utility lines and
easements that burden the property on the FMP. (CMP Condition' #5)
On September 29, 2006, the County received a letter from Edward P. Fitch, representing the
Broken Top Community Association. The letter includes additional arguments and demands for
conditions of approval. However, because the letter was submitted after the September 11, 2006
close of the record, the Hearings Officer does not consider it.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 8 of 35
Exhibit C
PaavR/If l5
FINDING: All utility lines and easements which burden the property were shown on
the FMP map and, are shown on the submitted. tentative plat. As provided for in the
FMP appeal decision, if the existing overhead power line remains, it must be located
within the area depicted on revised maps A-1, A-2, A-7 and.A-9 of that decision. If the
powerline is to be replaced with an underground line, it may be relocated within the
'relocation corridor` depicted on maps submitted by the applicant during the November
14, 2005 FMP hearing.
F. All portions of the proposed resort must be managed and operated in an
integrated manner. Failure to comply with. this standard would void resort
approval. (CMP Condition #6; FMP•Conditlon #4)
FINDING: As proposed, the internal road systemand pedestrian. and bike trails
ensure appropriate circulation within the tesort. As noted In the* Sewer and Water
Agreement, water and sewer infrastructure 'would be provided throughout the resort.
Review of resort amenities, including the golf course, overnight accommodations, and
commercial and recreational facilities, would. be analyzed for conformance with this
condition during future Site Plan review.
G. During all phases of the development, the developer and/or its
successors in Interest shall ensure that Indlvldivally-owned residential
units shall not exceed two such units for each unit of vlsltor-oriented
overnight lodging. Individually -owned units ,shall be considered visitor -
oriented lodging if -they are . available for overnight rental use by the
general public for at least 45 weeks per calendar year through one or
more central reservation and check -In service(s). (CMP Condition #7; FMP
,Condition #5)
FINDING: Conformance with this standard would be checked during future Site Plan
review of the over -night accommodations. A condition of approval is imposed to
require Site Plan approval of the overnight accommodations prior to final plat approval
to ensure compliance with DCC 19.106.060(A).
H. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of
the destination resort shall comply with the,requirements and,limitations of
Section 19.106.070(Q). Speclflc determination of compliance with this
condition shall be made initially at the time'of FMP approval and finally at
the time of site plan approval for each' individual commercial component of
the FMP. (CMP Condition #8; FMP Condition #6)
FINDING: Compliance with this requirement was confirmed in the FMP approval and
specifically made a condition of approval. Compliance with this requirement would be
checked.during future Site Plan review for each individual. commercial component.
1. Commercial, cultural; entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of
the destination resort shall be contained within the development and shall
not be oriented to public roadways. Commercial, cultural and entertainment
uses allowed within the destination resort shall be Incidental to the resort
Itself.. As such, these ancillary uses shall be permitted only at a scale
suited to serve visitors to the resort. Compliance with this requirement
shall also be included as a condition of FMP approval. The maximum
_building height for commercial, cultural and entertainment uses shall be 40
feet. (CMP Condition #9; FMP Condition #7) '
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 9 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 9 of 35
FINDING: The 'Development Tracts' illustrated on the Tentative Plat (TP) conform to
the proposed townhouse, multi -family, cottage, and commercial development areas
identified on the FMP Master Development Plan, Exhibit A-1.. As noted in the Hearings
Officer decision for CU -04-94, commercial uses would likely be limited to Areas 2, 3, and
4 (Development Tracts Z, AA, and AB), with a maximum height of 40.feet for all
commercial uses. The height restriction would allow the natural topography of the site to
screen the commercial uses from Century Drive, and orient these uses away from
Century Drive. Future Site Plan review of any proposedcommercial, cultural,
entertainment, and accessory uses would ensure that these uses would be at a scale
• suited to serve visitors of the resort.
Additionally, all development of the resort site would be required to comply with the
approved Height'Restriction Areas Map (Exhibit A-6, FMP) where applicable.
J. The applicant and Its successors shall guarantee that all open space used
to meet the 50%'� open space requirement of Section 19.106.030(E) and •
19.106.060(0). In addition, all trails currently depicted on the conceptual
plan map as being. "public trails" shall remain open and available to the
public. (CMP Condition #10; FMP Condition #8)
FINDING: On July 31, 2006, the applicant submitted a table which calculates the open
space area for all of the common area tracts, golf course tracts, and the park tract. This
table is incorporated by reference herein and included In the record. Based upon the
table, the 698 -acre resort would have 357.8 acres of open space, or 51.3% open space.
Additionally, the proposed preliminary CC&Rs would ensure -that all open space used to
meet the 50% open space requirement would remain as open space and that the public
trails would remain open to the public, as shown on the Tentative Plat. A condition of
approval is imposed to require that open space tracts be designated as such on the plat
for each phase of development.
K. The applicant and its successors in interest shall guarantee that all
• development would comply with the financial commitment and minimum
development requirements set out in DCC 19.106.060(A). Guarantees shall
be in the form satisfactory to the county to ensure that the development
would be completed consistent with this approval, and may include bonds,
certificates of partkipation, and deed restrictions to ensure compliance
with open space and developed recreation standards. Failure to comply
.with these requirements would void the resort approval. (CMP Condition
#11; FMP Condition #9)
FINDING: The Applicant agrees to submit adequate financial assurances to comply with
the required financial commitment and minimum development requirements. A condition
of approval Is imp.osed to require site plan approval or adequate financial commitment
for the elements detailed in DCC 19.106,060(A).
L. The applicant shall specify all recreatlonalfacilities within the proposed
resort aspart of the FMP submittal. (CMP Condition #13)
FINDING: The FMP approval established the recreational facilities to be an 18 -hole golf
course as shown on the CMP and FMP approvals, and the submitted Tentative Plat.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 10 of 35
Exhibit C
Pons. 1(1ofZG
This condition is satisfied.
M. The FMP shall not be approved until such time as the applicant has either
completelymitigated all resort Impacts on wildlife or has assured that such
impacts would be mitigated after FMP approval by the imposition of
enforceable conditlons.of approval, Inclusion of wildlife protection
obligations In covenants and restrictions that would burden the expansion
area, adoption of wildlife regulations by the resort owners association, and
by the execution of development agreements where appropriate. The
applicant shall prepare and file a comprehensive wildlife mitigation master
plan that explains how each mitigation measure would be or has been
assured, .prior to FMP approval, This explanation must be supported by
documentation of consent by all landowners whose property would be
used to meet the mitigation measures. (CMP Condition #14; FMP Condition
#20)
FINDING: The Final Wildlife Evaluation (June 29, 2005) was approved by Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as a part of the FMP approval. Staff
recommends setting the Year 1 mitigation measure reporting date (as required In
Mitigation Measure # 15 of the Evaluation) for December 31, 2006, with annual reporting
continuing thereafter. On July 31, 2006 the applicant submitted a proposed 'Timeline
and Implementation Program for Wildlife Impact and Mitigation' that has been Forwarded
to ODFW, in accordance with the ODFW approve.d Wildlife Management Plan.
Mitigation Measure #14 requires that the Cascade Highlands Homeowner's Association
create and monitor a wildlife mitigation fund. Those monies will be paid to ODFW upon
request from ODFW in accordance with the provisions of the timeline and
Implementation schedule. County staff requests an opportunity to review the timeline in
conjunction with ODFW staff to ensure adequacy. Staff also recommends that the
tracking method be approved by the County and ODFW, and added as a Condition of
Final Plat Approval. Conditions of approval with respect to the approved Final Wildlife
Evaluation are included in Conditions 12 and 13, below.
N. All temporary structures shall be limited to a.maximum of 18 months on the
resort site. (CMP Condition #16; FMP Condition #11)
FINDING: The applicant agrees to this limitation as a Condition of Approval.
O. All development within the proposed resort shall meet all fire protection
requirements of the Bend Fire Department: (CMP Condition #17; FMP
Condition #12) !,
FINDING: The Bend Fire Department has reviewed the Tentative Plat and submitted
comments. The applicant will be required to meet all the fire protection requirements of
the Bend Fire Department.
• i
The tentative plan Includes a proposed emergency access road connecting cul-de-sacs
'T' and 'Q' as requested by the Bend. Fire Marshal. Although a few cul-de-sacs (Roads
"O", 'K". and 'T°) exceed the typical maximum desired length of cul-de-sacs in standard
residential development, the Fire Marshall had no objections to the longer cul-de-sacs,
. with the .addltion of the emergency access. between roads "T' and "Cr.
1
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973) Page 11 of 35
Exhibit C
Pave 11 of 35
P. No development shall be allowed on slopes of 25% or more on the site.
(CMP Condition #17; FMP Condition #13)
FINDING: As shown on the submitted plans, no development is proposed on slopes of
more than 25%.
Q. Thls-development shall adopt CCRs that afford the development "Firewise
Community" status by the time Phase l is approved, and shall provide the
• county proof that such status has. be conferred on It by the Firewise
Organization. (See standards set out at yvww.flrewlse.orp.) in lieu of
• 'Firewise Community" status, the applicant may submit development
design standards fof.approval by the county forester prior to FMP
approval. (CMP Condition #18)
FINDING: The Applicant has reached agreement with the Deschutes County Forester.
FMP documentation includes a memorandum from Joseph E. Stutter, Deschutes County
Forester, indicating his review and approval. The agreement creates standards which
would be integrated into the Cascade Highlands Final CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.
In general, the CC&Rs provide for.
1. Enforcement and regulation of these standards would be provided by the
Cascade Highlands Homeowners' Association (HOA) in accordance with
the final recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for Cascade Highlands.
2. Participation in Project Wildfire sponsored local and community events
and relevant programs such as Project Wildfire's'FireFree.T
3. Commencing with the recorded sale of any residential lot, the HOA would
assess an annual contribution of $4 payable to Project Wildfire, 63377
Jamison Street, Bend, OR 97701. Cascade Highlands would collect the
.payment annually from the lot owner' as part of other association dues
and forward the collected amount to Project Wildfire.
4. No later than 12 months after the recorded safe of any residential lot, the
HOA would submit information and applications as required for
consideration as an officially recognized and designated participant in the
Firewise Communities USA recognition program.
�- Any timeshare units not Included on the FMP or on individual plats shall be
subject to approval under the conditional use criteria set forth In Chapter
19.100 of Title 19 of the County Code. (CMP Conditlon #19. FMP Codditlon
#14)
FINDING: The Applicant does not plan any timeshare units at this time but agrees to .
seek conditional use approval if such units become a part of the resort development plan
in the future.
S. Documentation of ODFWs support of the applicant's November 2004 .
Wildlife Evaluation and mitigation plan shall be submitted to the planning
division prior to FMP approval. (CMP Condition #20)
FINDING: The Applicant's predecessor submitted a Wildlife Impact and Mitigation Plan
developed in conjunction with and approved by ODFW as a part of the FMP approval
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973) .
Page 12 of 35
Exhibit C
Pavv 1? of 14
process. The Final Wildlife Evaluation (June 29, 2005) includes the agreed upon
mitigation measures. As noted above, the applicant has submitted a Timeline and
implementation Program far Wildlife Impact and Mitigation. Conditions of approval are
imposed to assure continued compliance with the mitigation plan.
T Proposed drywells shall be approved by the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). (CMP Condition #21; FMP Condition #15)
FINDING: The applicant agrees to a condition of approval (similar to conditions imposed
in the CMP and FMP decisions) that requires compliance with DEQ 'standards for
drywells. During this application phase, the County road department commented that it
does not permit the use 'of drywells to accommodaterun off 'torn County rights -of -Way.
Rather, the County requires the use of drainage swalesand retention basins. To the
extent drywelis are proposed to accommodate drainage from private portions of the
property, the drywells must meet DEQ standards, and must be maintained by the
Homeowners Association. To the extent that drywells have been proposed to address
drainage from the rights-of-way, the.tentative plan must be revised to depict drainage
solutions thatare acceptable to the County road department. A condition of approval is
imposed to assure compliance with this standard:
U. • Building heights and setbacks shall conform to the limits set forth in this
decision and shall be Incorporated into the Design Guidelines for the
resort. (CMP Condition #22; FMP Condition #16)
FINDING: The present application is for tentative plan approval to create the separate
lots and tracts within the destination resort. The Applicant is not seeking development
approval for any structures at this time. All structures developed as part of the
destination resort would be required to comply with the Conceptual Setback Plan (see
Exhibit A-4, CMP; revised November 30, 2004); Minimum Dimensional Standards (see
Exhibit T, CMP), and Height Restriction Areas Map (see Exhibit A-6, FMP).
Conformance with these standards would be checked during future site plan review.
Shane Austin testified that the proposed subdivision design will result in buildings
towering over the Braebum subdivision: He requested that maximum building heights
within proposed areas AD, AF, AG and AH be lowered, or that the anticipated
development within those areas (townhouse, multi -family residential and cottage homes)
• be relocated to the western side of the eastern loop road.
In its September 18, 2006 post -hearing submittal, the applicant advised the Hearings
Officer that its representatives had met with residents of the Braebum subdivision, and .
• had agreed to a condition of approval that imposes a 20 foot setback from the bluff rim
and a,40 -foot biullding. height limit for development located within proposed Tract AD.
The CMP and FMP decisions were. based on evidence provided by the applicant.that the
approved building heights will minimize visual impacts from adjacent development. The
additional condition of.approval agreed to by the applicant will address concerns
identified by residents cif the Braebur[r Subdivision that development in the area closest
to the subdivision will be designed to minimize adverse visual impacts.
This condition has been satisfied, and will be further addressed though the imposition of
a condition of approval with respect to development within Tract AD.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 13 of 35
Exhibit C
Paap 11 of IC
V. The fiinal .CC&Rs adopted.by.the developer and any amendments thereto
shall conform In all material respects to this decision and the requirements
of the DCC. (CMP.Conditlon #23; FMP Condition #17) .
FINDING: The Applicant is developing Master Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) for the resort and agrees that the Master CC&Rs would conform In all material
respect to the CMP and FMP approvals and the requirements of the County Code. A
Condition of Approval requiring submittal and approval of the Master CC&Rs prior to
Final Plat Approval is imposed to assure compliance with this standard.
W. The applicant is allowed to Install no more than three on -premises signs
that advertise the resort and Its amenities on Century Drive. This limitation
does not apply to directional and traffic safety signage. The on -premises
signs shall conform to any applicable provisions of the DCC or state law of
the time of installation, including setback, vision clearance areas and
maximum square footage. (CMP Condition #24; FMP Condition'#18)
FINDING: The present application is for tentative plan approval to .create the individual
Tots and tracts within the destination resort. At this time, the applicant Is not seeking
approval for signs within the resort. The applicant will be required to secure individual
sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of the DCC for these signs.
X. A single gatehouse is permitted at the Century Drive entrance. The
gatehouse must be sited outside of all public rights-of-way and on private
property. Additionally, the gatehouse must hot conflict with any City of
Bend utilities contained in exclusive easements. The gatehouse would
require future site plan review. (CMP Condltlon #25; FMP Condition #19)
FINDING: The present application is for tentative plan approval. The Applicant agrees
to seek site plan review for any future gatehouse.
TITLE 17 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, SUBDIVISIONS:
A. Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans
1. Section 17.16.030. Informational re uirements.
FINDING: The applicant's engineer, W&H Pacific, prepared a TP and a burden of proof
(BoP) statement to address these informational requirements. Richard Kaufman.testified.
that the information Is Inadequate .to satisfy DCC 17.16.030(BX3), which requires that
the applicationinclude the location of "natural features, such as rock outcroppings,
marshes, wooded areas and natural hazards.' According to Mr. Kaufman this standard,
unlike DCC 19.106.030(8) requires that ail natural features, not Just Important natural
features, be•.depicted on the applicant's plans and, by Implication, must be preserved.
Because DCC 17.16.030(B)(3) is more inclusive than DCC 19.106.030(8); Mr. Kaufman
argues that findings adopted in the CMP decision that conclude that DCC 19.106.070(E)
was satisfied, is inadequate to demonstrate that DCC 17.13.030 and 17.16.080 are
satisfied as well.
DCC 17.16.030 sets out the standards for a subdivision plan application. if an applicant •
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 14 of 35
Exhibit C
Pare 14 of :i5
submits an application that addresses the informational requirements, the decision
maker has a basis for evaluating the application against applicable approval standards.
Here, the applicant submitted a subdivision plan that depicts special topographic
features, namely steep slopes and rock outcroppings. The applicant provided an aerial
photo overlay of.the property to show the location of trees of the property. That
information is adequate to show existing conditions on the property as Is required by
DCC 17.16.030. In addition, otherr evidence, including evidence submitted by Mr.
Kaufman.during these proceedings, provides enough information to evaluate relevant
approval standards.4
• 2. Section 17.16.080. Tentative plan as a -master plan.
A. As an alternative to the filing of a master plan for phased
development, the applicant may file a tentative plan for the
• entire development The plan must comply with the
provisions. of DCC Title 17 for tentative plans.
B. if the applicant proposed to phase development, [the
applicant] shall provide sufficient information regarding the
overall development plan 'and phasing sequence when
submitting the tentative plan. •
C if the tentative plan is approved with phasing, the final plat for
each phase shall be filed through 17.24.110.
FINDING: The Cascade Highlands Destination Resort is proposed to be.developed in
multiple.phases as shown on the tentative plan phasing plan submitted. According to
the applicant, the proposed phasing plan has been designed in accordance with the
CMP and FMP approvals to maintain maximum flexibility to respond to market
conditions. The phasing plan reflects the need for flexibility with the alphanumeric phase
designations provided. In general the expected geographic trend of phasing is provided
by the numeric designations, and the additional alphabetical designations reflect the .
potential need to simultaneously develop different areas within the resort boundary.
The applicant anticipates build out and completion of the resort within approximately 10
years. However, because macroeconomics, world events, and many other market
issues, can have a significant impact on resort development, the applicant requests the
tentative plan approval be valid for 15 years from the approval decision date, in
recognition of these Issues and the size of thls project. The applicant acknowledges that
the DCC includesprovisions approvals beyond the existing phasing time
frame but argues that; in this case,.where the applicant knows that development will not
4 Mr. Kaufman also appears to argue that if evidence is inadequate to satisfy current approval
standards; it necessarily follows that It is inadequate to satisfy CMP standards. As the Hearings
Officer understands it,.Mr. Kaufman asserts that the application of DCC 17.18.030'inforrhational
standards necessarily impose more rigorous review and approval standards that should have
been applied during the CMP process, and that CMP approval standards can be reevaluated
during this process if that.initial review was inadequate. To the extent this is a cognizable •
argument In this proceeding, the Hearings Officer Concludes that DCC 19.108.070(E) does not
require the preservation of all important natural features.. It provides that "(ajlterations to
important natural features, including placement of structures, Is allowed so Tong as the overall
values of the feature are maintained The Information supplied by the applicant Identifies natural
features, and retains enough of those features to preserve the wooded landscape values
Identified by opponents as an °important" natural feature.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 15 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 15 n f 1
be completed within the phasing deadlines, it is appropriate to approve an extended
development schedule at the tentative plan stage.
Neighbors disagree. They contend that a developer should be held to a specific
development schedule in order to minimize the amount of construction traffic that will
occur within and around the development.
The Hearings Officer concludes that an extension of the phasing schedule is not
appropriate at this time. The Deschutes County area has been rapidly developing for
more than a decade. The impacts of those developments need to be realized in within a
concrete and relatively short development time line, so that future developments do not
rely on.artificial conditions to assure compliance with applicable approval criteria. For
example, the applicant has provided a traffic study that the Hearings Officer relied upon
to approve the CMP. If the findings and conduslons are flawed, those flaws will be
shown by the actual traffic generated by the development. Allowing the applicant to
extend development for an additional five years will merelyextend the time that those
flaws will be latent, and In the meantime other developments will be likely approved that
will exacerbate those flaws. The Hearings Officer concludes that the public interest is
better served by requiring the applicant to abide by phasing timelines, and by requiring
the applicant to demonstrate changes in circumstances that would Justify extending
those timelines, If development does not proceed as planned.
3, 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 would meet the requirements
of this title and Titles 18 through 21 of this code and is in
compliance with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. The subdivision contributes to the 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.
FINDING: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, set out in DCC Title 23,
contemplates that some plan policies will directly apply to some applications. See e.g.,
DCC 23.40.050 (setting out development standards for specific resort communities); and
DCC 23.136.010(L) (criteria established by staff or other decision makers.may be
imposed to assure,compliance with the spirit of the comprehensive plan). With respect to
development plans: within areas' mapped for.destination resorts, the plan prohibits the
application of the destination resolt overlay to lands that have been designated
`Extremely Sensitive Big Game Habitat;' areas zoned for large scale farm or 'forest uses;
or areas protected through programs adopted to comply with Goal 5 (endangered plant
and animal species, wetlands, riparian corridors, outstanding scenic and natural
features, etc.) The BOCC concluded that the subject property does not have any of
those features when it applied the destination resort designation to the property.
The provisions of the comprehensive plan pertaining to destination resorts and
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 16 of 35
Exhibit C
PAOP 16 of ZS
1
development in areas with wildlife resources and steep slopes are implemented by the
previous CMP and FMP approvals, DCC 17.16.100, and by development standards that
require additional review"in-wildlife combining' zones and landscape management
.corridors.
_ The subject property does not have any natural streams or lakes. It includes neither
designated agricultural land nor Goal 4 forest lends.. its vegetative cover is similar to
other undeveloped properties in the vicinity. clusters of secondary forest growth,
manzanita, juniper, sage brush and other native shrubs. It includes steeper areas,
primarily the steep slope rising from Century Drive to rock outcroppings located between
60 and '80 feet above and 200 to600 feet .from the road. There are no inventoried
wildlife corridors or sensitive species located on the subject property 5
During the FMP appeal and during this process, Richard Kaufman and others testified
that this standard requires (1) a survey by an independent entity to identify and evaluate
all natural features, including a complete survey of all trees on the. property; (2)
preservation of natural features thatexist on the site and, if necesaary-(3) a redesign of
the approved CMP/FMP plans to address wildlife and natural features that were not
adequately identified during the initial CMP process. Some neighbors with properties
located within City limits noted that during the development of their properties, the City
required a thorough vegetation survey, and required that certain skies be either
preserved or planted on their properties. These neighbors assert that the same
• thoroughness should be required In the development of the subject 698 acres.
As Is shown by the testimony, the City's development standards differ from.the County's
and, in some respects, are muchmore rigorous. In this case, the subject property Is
located outside of. City limits; and Is subject to the County's more lenient standards. DCC
17.16.100(A) requires a balancing of the development features so that overall, the
proposed subdivision is safe, includes required development elements, and preserves
natural features that characterize the area. The evidence shows the general location of
trees on the property, and also shows that portions of the property will be logged and
graded to better accommodate the proposed development. The proposed plan provides
for safe transportation corridors through the development, provides for open space
features, Including a golf course and a trail system in addition to other features required
by the destination development standards,-suchas a hotel and other guest -oriented
recreational features. The applicant testified that trees on the property. that -do not
interfere with the proposed development plans be preserved, and that rock
outcroppings will generally not be graded or developed. This evidence is adequate to
demonstrate that the subdivision contributes to the orderly development of the area and
that natural features on the property will be preserved. This criterion is satisfied.
B. The subdivision would not create excessive demand on
public facilities, services and utilities required to serve the
development.
5 The HO acknowledges that there was testimony regarding.the existence of
sensitive/threatened/endangered species on the.subject-property. However, under the DCC and
the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, development Is limited only in those areas that have
been identified as special wildlife habitat and have been Included on an adopted local or state
Inventory for protection.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 17 of 35
Exhibit C
Donn i1 of 14
FINDING: The impacts from the proposed residential, commercial and recreational uses
were contemplated and analyzed at the time of the CMP and FMP approvals. The
provision of access, water, sewer and utilities•was analyzed and addressed through the
CMP and FMP approval process t� ensure they would be provided in en orderly fashion
to accommodate the uses within the resort, with public pedestrian, vehicle and bicycle
access through the resort. At that time, the applicant's predecessor negotiated with the
City of Bend and Deschutes County to mitigate the potential Impacts the development
would have to the City sewer, City water and City street systems serving the
development. Public facilities for the resort would be sized accordingly, allowing the
proposed subdivision to be developed without excessive demand on existing or future
service capacities. The plans submitted in the CMP and FMP approval process depict.
the locations of all sewer (Exhibit A-9, FMP), water (Exhibit.A-8, FMP), storm drainage
(CMP Erosion Control Plan), and power infrastructure (Exhibit A-7, FMP). Additionally,
the project would be served by City of Bend water and sewer service pursuant to the .
Water/Sewer Agreement between the applicant's predecessor and the City of Bend (see
Exhibit TP -6). The FMP approval demonstrates that ell utility system operations (sewer,
water, power, telephone, cable) would be regulated by the City of Bend and the State of
Oregon.
Access to the resort would be provided via an extension of Skyline Ranch Road between
Skyliner Road and Century Drive, an extension of Hosmer Lake Drive, and the extension
of Metolius Drive west from the Broken Top community. These roads would be
developed to the standards detailed in CMP Exhibit V. Per an agreement between the
applicant and the Broken Top Homeowners Association, the connection between Broken
Top Drive will be for emergency purposes only. Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drive
would be dedicated to the public_ Access to the proposed lots would be provided by the
internal private roads within the resort.
According to Bend Transportation, the proposed street design will add an unnecessary
level of additional traffic onto the public collectors and will result in circuitous travel
through neighborhoods. The City suggests that West Campbell, Mirror Lake Place,
Broken Top Drive, Hosmer Lake, Todd Lake Court, NW Glenora Way, NW Perlette Lane
and NW Lakemont Drive be continued from the east into the proposed development.
The applicant responds that general street connectivity and circulation, and the
appropriate adjacent street connections are addressed in the CMP and FMP approvals.
Those decisions specifically recognize.that Broken Top Drive and Todd Lake Court are.
private roads. owned by other Homeowner Associations and appropriately addressed
connectivity through the public roadway system.
The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed intemal road systems and the
proposed connections to adjacent streets avoid placing excessive demands on those
streets. As the applicant notes, some of the streets are private'streets homeowners in
those adjacent developments are likely to. object to adding additional traffic to those
streets that are not owned or maintained by the City. As for the other streets, the
Hearings Officer concludes that the impact of the proposed development on those
streets and on adjacent and nearby developments are better mitigated by the proposed
street plan than by requiring additional connections with residential streets. Finally, to the
extent the matter is relevant, the Hearings Officer disagrees with the City that NW
Perielte Lane and NW Lakemont Drive stub out at the property boundary. Those two
streets connect to NW Gleriora Lane, which is. laid out to provide.a connection to either
Skyline Boulevard or Skyline Ranch Road to the north of the subject • property, a
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 18 of 35
Exhibit C
D.+.... 10 ..t 2C
preferable connection to collector/arterial streets than an angled interesection between
two local streets, which would be the result of an extension of NW Glenora Lane to the
subject property, especially because the topography is relatively steep between NW
Glenora Lane and the subject property.
This criterion is satisfied.
C. The tentative plan for the proposed subdivision meets the
requirements of [ORS/ 92090.
FINDING: The requirements of ORS 92.090 have been codified Into the County Code In
Title 17. W&H Pacific, the applicant's engineer, submitted a subdivision TP which
includes the informational requirements set out in Title 17, the County Subdivision
Ordinance. Thus, conformance with Title 17 meets the requirements of ORS 92.090,
D. For subdivision or portions thereof proposed within a Surface
Mining impact Area...
FINDING: The subject property is not within a surface mining impact area.
Consequently, this criterion does not apply.
E. The subdivision name has been approved by the County
Surveyor.
FINDING: The proposed name of the subdivision is Cascade Highlands Destination
ResorL A condition of approval is imposed to require that the name be approved by the
County Surveyor.
B. Chapter 17.36, Design Standards.
1. Section 17.36.020. Streets.
A. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered
in their relation fo existing and planned streets, topographical
conditions, public convenience and safety...
FINDING: There are two coltector streets runningthrough the resort: Metoiius Drive
and Skyline Ranch Road. As discussed earlier, those roads will be developed to
County/AASHTO standards and will be dedicated to the public..The construction, •
dedication and use will be consistent with their road designation set out In the City and
County T$Ps. Other major internal roads within the resort include an extension of
Hosmer Lake Drive and Broken Top Drive into the resort. Hosmer Lake Drive is
proposed to be a •private. road that serves residential properties in the center and north of
the subject property. It is proposed to be connected to the existing segment of Hosmer
Lake Drive that dead -ends at the boundary fo the northeasteni portion of the subject
property. Broken Top Drive is a private street within the Broken Top PUD to serve •
internal residential and resort development. The applicant has entered into an
agreement with the Broken Top Community Association to limit access between the
properties to emergency access only. The road will be gated at the subject property line
to assure its use is limited to emergency access.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 19 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 19 of 35
Other streets in the area that border the subject property include: West Campbell, Mirror
Lake Place, Todd Lake Court and NW Glenora Way. According to Bend Transportation;
the proposed street design will add an unnecessary level of additional traffic onto the
public collectors and will result in circuitous travel through neighborhoods. Bend
Transportation suggests that the road system be reconfigured to accommodate more
secondary road connections with adjacent developments. The applicant responds that
general street connectivity and circulation, and the appropriate adjacent street
connections are addressed in the CMP and. FMP approvals. Those decisions specifically
recognize that Broken Top Drive and Todd Lake Court are private roads owned by other
Homeowner Associations and appropriately addressed connectivity through the public
roadway'system.
Skyline Ranch Road/Metolius Drive
Per.the Broken Top Phase III -E plat (Plat No. 818), the Metolius Drive right-of-way was
conditionally dedicated to the public. The dedication would become effective "• `. * only
upon a determination by the Deschutes County Commission, or if the right-of-way has
been annexed the Bend City Commission; that a public right-of-way 'is required for
access .to the property contiguous. to the Broken Top .Planned Development." At this
time, the Bend City Council has not accepted the • Deed of Dedication for the Metolius
Drive right-of-way and, therefore, that segment of Metolius Drive is a private street.
.According to the current Bend Urban Area Transportation System Plan, Metolius Drive is
designated as , a Proposed Major Collector, intended for intensive public use. The
segment of Metolius Drive that passes through the subject property is proposed to be
constructed to collector standards and, if the Deed of Dedication is accepted by the City
of Bend, continue a major public) roadway as identified in the City of Bend Transportation
System Plan. Staff believes the Deed of Dedication acceptance by the City for the
Metolius Drive right-of-way is essential to traffic circulation for the resort, which is
contiguous to. the Broken Top PUD. A Condition of Approval is imposed to require that
the applicant to provide proof that the City of Bend has accepted the Deed of Dedication
for Metolius Drive prior to Final Plat Approval.
At this time, Metolius Drive has not been constructed to handle truck traffic (pavement
section) and has not been constructed to accommodate turning traffic at Mt:.
Washington, as provided for in the 2000development agreement. Consequently, Bend
Transportation testified .that Metolius Drive would not provide, a suitable construction
route. The City requests a . condition of approval to include a restriction to the
Construction. Routing Plan that protects the structural integrity of Metolius Drive and
does not allow its use for construction traffic. The applicant is willing to abide by such a
condition.
The,extenslon of Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drive (the pugiic collector roads)
through the resort provide for the continuation of the principal existing streets In the
adjoining lands. The custom street sections provided in CMP Exhibit V for the public
collector roads accomplish that with combinations of urban elements (curbs), slightly
reduced lane widths, and design speed control. The typical street sections approved. in
CMP Exhibit V, are also shown on the tentative plan:
Century Drive/Metolius Drive: j
There was also testimony that headlights from vehicles entering the resort development
from Century Drive would adversely affect neighbors within the Braebum subdivision,
and that traffic from the resort would result in additional difficulties In enteringand exiting
Hearings Officer Deolslon (TP -06-973) . Page 20 of 35
Exhibit C
Pape 20 of 35
the Braebum subdivision from Century Drive during the ski season.
The applicant provided evidence In the forrn of tentative design ptans,for Metolius Drive
as it climbs from Century Drive :to the main -resort area showing that the road is to be
constructed below.grade, thereby ensuring that lights from vehicles entering the resort
property from Century Drtve. will be confined to the roadway and rock" walls surrounding it
rather than trespass onto neighboring property. With respect to the impact of additional
vehicle trips from the resort, theapplicant asserts that with the construction of Metolius
Drive asa collector through the subdivision, it is likely that fewer vehicles will use the
segment of Century Drive that fronts.the Braebum subdivision, because vehicles
traveling from Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drivewest to Mount 'Batchelor will have
a shorter route through the resort than tb travel south In Washington Drive where it
intersects with Century Drive east of Braebum Subdivision.
Other Private Streets
CMP Exhibit V allows for private roads to be constructed at a minimum paved width of
20 feet. As indicated on the tentative plan; the applicant may Increase the paved width
of some private roadsto 28 feet, to accommodate on -street parking on one side, in
accordance with the emergency response requirements.
The property has significant topographic relief in many areas. Street grade design would
meet the. desired 30 mph design speeds. Approximate street grades are indicated on
the tentative pian, Those grades are considered preliminary, subject to final design, and
review and approval by the County Road Department.
Based on the evidence and.findiings, the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant
adequately considered existing and planned streets, topographical conditions, public
convenience and safety In proposing its street layout, and that the.proposed street •
design accommodate the opportunity and limitations that those features offer. Conditions
of approval are imposed to assure compliance with this standard.
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.
FINDING: The proposed Cascade Highlands destination resort includes both public and
private streets as shown on the submitted plans. Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius •
Drive will be dedicated to the public.. All other streets in the resort will be private.
2. Section 17,38.080. 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.
FINDING: Land to the east and north of the proposed Cascade Highlands Resort is
subdivided with the Broken Top and Highlands at Broken Top subdivisions. Extensions
of Skyline Ranch Road, Metolius Drive, and Hosmer Lake Drive through the resort
complete the connectivity.and circulation through the resort.. National Forest land abuts
the west and a portion of the south 'resort boundaries. Road extensions to National
Hearings Officer Dedslon (TP -06-973)
Page 21 of 35
Exhibit C
Pave 21 of 35
Forest land is not desired by the United States Forest Service and is not necessary
because future division of the Forest Service land is unlikely.
The applicant andapplicant's predecessor have negotiated an Agreement with the
Broken Top Community Association, Inc. regarding the Broken Top Drive (private road)
connection. The Agreement was recorded on April 24, 2006, in Volume 2006, page
27759, Deschutes County official records (see Exhibit TP -7).
The Agreement specifies the following language be included in the Tentative Plan
application; and the applicant hereby requests the County consider incluslon of thls
language as a condition of approval:
"So long as Broken Top Drive remains a private road owned.and maintained bythe
Broken Top Community Association, the portion of Broken Top Drive within the Resort
shall also be a private road and shall be gated at the common property line between the
Resort Property and the Broken Top Planned Unit Development Vehicular access
between the Resort.and the Broken Top Planned Unit Development via BrokenTop
Drive shall be limited to emergency, fire and/or life safety, purposes.°
Broken Top Drive is proposed to be a private road within the resort and a private road
outside of the resort. Staff has concluded that Broken Top Drive would.not be necessary
for public access. If the applicant wishes to add the above language to the Final Plat, it
must be made clear that the County would not be responsible for enforcement. The
above Agreement is under the discretion of the developer and Tater the Homeowners
Association.
With respect to other streets, the applicant has proposed an emergency access from
Todd Lake Court to Metolius Drive through the subject property. Other connections are
either not desirable (NW Glenora Way to Hosmer Lake Drive) or are not necessary'to
assure access or future land divisions on adjacent property. This criterion is satisfied.
3. 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 ti►e destination and
length of trip. • ..
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 22 of 35
Exhibit C
Paee 22 of 35
FINDING: Although omitted as an oversight on the TP, the location Of all roads and
trails will be consistent with the Master Trails Plan (see Exhibit TP-5)and the Vehicle
and Pedestrian Access Plan (see exhibit TP -4). The Master Trails Plan 'shows a 10 foot
wide, hard`surface multi -use path along one side of Skyline Ranch Road (between the
north resort boundary and Century Drive), Metolius Drive (between the eastem property
boundary and Skyline Ranch Road), and the entirety of the eastern loop road. The path
would meander along the roadways, and may also be included with roadways at isolated .
locations, particularly in steeper terrain to avoid excessive cuts and fills.
In addition, the applicant's predecessor and the applicant have worked closely with Bend
Metro. Parks and Recreation District (BMPRD) and the Central Oregon Trails Alliance
(COTA) to design soft surface trails to connect BMPRD park facilities and the Bend
urban:area to the public Forest Service lands.located to the west of the resort. As
shown on.the submitted plans, the main soft surface trail would run along the ridge
located at the southern area of the resort site from the BMPRD parcel located to the east
of the resort to the US.Forest Service lands Iocated.to the west. COTA would construct
the trail with funding from the applicant and its predecessor. The additional soft surface
trails shown on the Master Trails Plan are designed t� connect existing.trail facilities to
the hard surface, multi -use trails within the resort, and connect the -hard surface trail
along Skyline Ranch Road to the Forest Service lands.
Bend Transportation recommends that a trail crossing from the resort across Century
Drive be planned to provide a safe connection between the development and the
Deschutes River Trail system to the south. According to the planner, travel speeds on
Century Drive make it difficult for persons trying to cross the unmarked road. The
applicant responds that a trail crossing across Century Drive was not contemplated or
approved in the CMP/FMP decisions and, furthermore, such a connection would not
promote traffic safety, as it provides the illusion of safety for pedestrian and bicyclists
without the protection of stop signs or lights to slow traffic along Century Drive.
The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian plan will
adequately accommodate and promote those transportation alternatives within and to
neighboring activity centers. The subject property is being developed with recreational
centers; it.abuts USFS land and Bend Park and Recreation property; and.connects to
the existing bicycle and pedestrian trail system within the City. The Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District and the Central Oregon Trails Alliance have supported the proposed
trail system. The Hearings Officer agrees with the City that. a connection across Century
Drive to trails to the south will optimize trail connections, but concludes that such a
connection cannot be safely constructed at this time.
2. Subdivision Layout.
a. • Cut -desacs . or dead-end streets shall . be
allowed only where, due to .topographical or
. environmental constraints, the size and shape
of the parcel, or a lack of through -street
connections in the area, a street connection Is
determined by fhe 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
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 23 of 35
Exhibit C j
Pace 23 of 35
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- 450
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 ¢00 -foot intervals:
d. Connections shall not be more than 400 feet
long and shall be as straight as possible.
FINDING: The.proposed tentative plan indicates several cul-de-sacs to minimize the
number of road crossings and,meet the intrinsic demands, of a golf course development.
Additional cul-de-sacs are proposed and warranted near the western (National Forest)
boundary, where street extensions are not likely.
Similarly the proposed tentative plan includes three short "dead end" or frontage roads
paralleling the public collectors; Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drive. The frontage
roads are identified es roads 'G', 'M', and 'R' on the TP. These roads are necessitated
by the FMP condition prohibiting direct lot access to the public collector roads, and the
golf course layout Bach of these short private roads are in close proximity to other
private or public reads, such that fire hydrants can be located on the other roads, and
standard fire protection turnarounds are not necessary.
The TP incorporates the pedestrian and bicycle trail system approved as part of the
CMP and FMP.
Generally, the proposed local roads do not continue across either Skyline Ranch Road
or Metolius Road. Staff does not believe criterion 'c' applies. Given the unique nature of
a destination resort and the constraints created by the golf course, staff does not believe
that criterion 'd' should apply. The Hearings Officer agrees. This criterion is satisfied.
3. Facilities and Improvements.
a. Bikeways may be provided by either a separate
paved path or an on street bike lane, consistent
with the -requirements of DCC Tlf/e 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 10 foot usable surface.
FINDING: The applicant has proposed a network of pedestrian and bicycle paths to
provide connections within' and through the resort. Standards for the multi -use paths
were approved as part of CMP Exhibit V. The approved Master Trails plan depicts the
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)'
Page 24 of 35
Exhibit C
Pave 24 of1S
locations of all proposed paths. A condition of approval is imposed to require the
depiction of those tralts on the final plat.
4. - 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.
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'provlsions of DCC 17.36.140.
FINDING: The proposed length, width, and shape of blocks on the TP will -
accommodate the need -for adequate building site size, street width, and direct travel
routes. The project site is not within an urban growth boundary; accordingly, criterion 'B'
does not apply. •
5. 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 uhsubdlvided 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
maybe required.
FINDING:. Typically, sewer, water, power, telephone, television cable, and natural gas
utilities would be' extended within street rights-of-way. • Easements are typically not
required. -
All known utility easements are shown on the tentative plan. As the final design and the
final :plat are completed, an analysis of utilities and the need for easements would be
continually evaluated. Appropriate easements would be dedicated on the final plat. All
utility and street designs, and therefore the need for easements, would be subject to the
review and. approval by the Deschutes County Road Department. During the EMP
appeal process, nelghbors objected to therelocation of an overhead power line. As. part
of.a settlement agreement with those neighbors, the applicant's predecessor in interest
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973).
Page 25 of 35
-Exhibit C
Pave 25 of 35
agreed to keep the overhead power lines in the location depicted on the CMP site plan.
However, if the applicant. places the lines underground; the lines can be relocated to an
agreed-upon relocation corridor. That relocation corridor is depicted on the approved
FMP site plan.
The City commented that all utilities should be placed underground. The Hearings
Officer finds do County standards that require the undergrounding of utility lines.
The subject property is not traversed by a named watercourse. Criterion `B' does not
apply.
This standard is satisfied.
• 6. Section .17.36.170. Lots. size and shape.
The size, width and orientation of lots or parcels shall be
appropriate for the location of the land divislon•and for the type of
development and use contemplated, and shall be consistent with the
lot or parcel size provisions of Titles 18 through 21 on this code...
FiNDING: The size, width, and orientation of the Tots are appropriate to the uses
contemplated and meet the pertinent requirements of the CMP and FMP approvals and
Chapters 17 and 19 of the County Code.
7. 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 Plne. Neighborhood
Planning Area. Zoning Standards. Road frontage standards in
destination resorts shall be subject to review -in • the
conceptual master plan. •
B. Al side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or
radial to curved streets whereverpractcal.
FINDING: The CMP decision requires that all future subdivision plats within the resort
comply with the minimum dirimensional and setbacks standards set forth in CMP Exhibit
T. The dimensional standards require 20 -foot minimum street frontage for multi -family
. residential lots. For.single-family dwelling lots,.the dimensional standards require a .
minimum lot width of 20 -feet at the street Based upon a cursory review of the Tentative
Plat, the single-family lots vary from 20 feet to approximately 200 feet. The remaining
development tracts have a minimum lot width at the street of approximately 275 feet.
The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed lot frontages are consistent with the
CMP. standards.
Hearings Officer Decislon (TP -06-973)
Page 26 of 35
Exhibit C
Pape 26 of 35
As shown on the TP, side lot lines are generally at right angles to street lines and radial
to curved streets.
8. Section 17.36.190.• Through lots.
Lots or parcels with double frontage should be avoided except
where they are essential to provide separation of residential
development from major street or adjacent nonresidential activities
to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation.
A planting screen easement of at least 10 feet In width and across
which there shalt be no right of access may be required along the
lines of • lots or parcels abutting such • a traffic artery or other
incompatible use.
FINDING: No double frontage Tots or parcels are proposed. This criterion is satisfied.
9. Section 17.36.200. Comer lots.
Within an urban growth boundary, corner lots or parcels shall be a
minimum of five feet more in width than other lots or parcels, and
' also shall have sufficient extra width to meet the additional side yard
requirements of the zoning district in which they are located.
FINDING: The proposed development is not within an urban growth boundary. This
criterion does not apply.
10. Section 17.36.210. Solar access performance.
FINDING: Pursuant to Condition of Approval #10 in the FMP decision (M-05-2), all
single-family dwellings, multi -family units, commercial structures and resort facilities are
exempted from solar setback standards.
11. Section 17.36.220. Underground facilities.
Within an urban growth boundary, all permanent utility services ....
FINDING:. The proposed development is not within an urban growth boundary. This
provisiondoes not apply.
12. 17.36.230.. Grading of building sites. •
Grading of building sites shall conform to the following standards,
unless physical conditions demonstrate the . propriety of other
standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to
one and one half feet horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to
two feet horizontally..
C. . The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics
of lots and parcels made usable by fill shall be suitable
for the purpose Intended.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 27 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 27 of 35
D. When filling or grading Is contemplated by the
subdivider, he shall submit plans showing existing
and finished grades for the approvall of the Community
Development Director. In reviewing these plans, • the
Community Development Director shall consider the
need for drainage and effect of tilling on adjacent
property. Grading shall be finished In such a manner
as not to create steep banks or unsightly areas to.
adjacent property. .
FINDING: According to the applicant, significant lot grading is.not anticipated during the
street and utility infrastructure construction phase. The applicant may, however, grade
some lots in select areas, such as low lying.areas where necessary for stormwater flood
protection, or In steeper areas to create reasonable driveway access and.home site
areas for particular lots. Detailed street and utility design is needed to identify such.
potential lot grading. The applicant is agreeable to a condition that notes the
requirements of Section 17.36.230.apply. Staff recommends as a Condition of Approval,
that the applicant comply with DCC 17.36.230 for grading.
The Hearings Officer concludes that there Is substantial evidence to support a finding
that these standards can be satisfied. A condition of approval is imposed to assure that
individual development on the proposed Tots conform to this standard.
13. Section 17.36. Lighting.
Within an urban growth boundary, the subdivider shall provide
underground wiring to the County standards, •and a base for any
proposed ornamental street . lights at locations approved by the
affected utility company.
FINDING: The proposed development is not within an urban growth boundary. This
criterion does not apply.
14. Section 17.36.260. Fire Hazards.
Whenever possible, a minimum of two points 6f access to the
subdivision or partition shall be provided to provide assured access
for emergency vehicles and ease resident evacuation.
FINDING: As shown on the tentative plan, 5 points of access will be provided to ensure
access for emergency vehicles and resident evacuation. Access via Broken Top Drive
would be limited to emergency, fire, and/or life safety purposes. •
. 15. 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 thecurbing and paving of new streets in aIi new
subdivisions or partitions.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 28 of 35
Exhibit C
Paee 28 of 35
FINDING: As documented in .the.FMP approval decision, the applicant's predecessors
have executed a Water and Sewer Service Agreement (Exhibit TP -6) with the City of
Bend to provide water and sanitary. sewer.service to the resort. The preliminary Water
and Sewer Plehs provided in the Tentative Plan application depict the preliminary design
for theextension of said systems, to serve all areas of the resort. The applicant will work
with the City of Bend on final design in accordance with the Agreement.
. 12. Section 17.36.300, Public water system.
In any subdivision or partlt/on 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 than one acre or where potable water sources are at depths
greater than 500 feet * * *. Except as provided for in sections
17:24.120.and.17.24.130, a required water system°shall be
constructed and Operational, with !Ines extended to the lot line of
each and every lot depicted In the proposed subdivision or partition
plat, prior to final approval.
FINDING: As documented in the FMP approval decision, the applicant's predecessors
have executed a Water/Sewer Agreement (Exhibit TP -6) with the City of Bend to provide
water and sanitary sewer service to the resort. The preliminary Water and Sewer Plans
.provided in the Tentative Plan application depict the preliminary design for the extension
of said systems, to serve all areas of the resort. The applicant will work with the City of
Bend on final design in accordance with the Agreement.
C. Chapter 17.44, Park Development
FINDING: As part of the planning for the destination resort, the applicant's.
predecessors In interest entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
BMPRD to effect a land exchange resulting in a conveyance of a 14 -acre parcel
currently owned by BMPRD adjacent to the eastern boundary of the resort for use as
park and natural open space. The applicant's predecessors also donated $75,000 to
BMPRD to defray the costs of constructing and installing park improvements. The park
will include a 5 -acre improved park area' and a 9 -acre natural open space area with a
trail system and trail head parking. Additionally, the applicant's predecessor agreed
through the CMP and FMP approval process to reserve a 10 acre area for the creation
of a public park as shown on the tentative plan on the eastem resort boundary, south of
Metolius Drive and west of "The Parks" residential development located within the
Broken Top community. Pursuant to the MOU, the applicant's predecessor also donated
$60,000 towards the purchase of additional land for the development of an additional
neighborhood park within the First on the Hill subdivision.
The applicant has satisfied applicable park development standards.
D. Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications
1. Section 17.48.100, Minimum right of way width.
The minimum right of way.width Is 60 feet unless specified
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 29 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 29 of 1
•
otherwise in Table A.
FINDING: Table A specifies a 60 foot minimum right-of-way width for, collector roads,
and no mininium right-of-way width for private roads: The tentative plan indicates an 80 -
foot wide right-of-way. has been provided for the public -collector roads. •Skyline Ranch
Road and Metolius Drive as depicted on the TP is consistent with the dedicated right-of-
way for each of those roads in the abutting dsvelopments,.and as requested by the City
of Bend in the CMP and FMP processes. The tentative plan indicates the proposed •
private road right-of-ways vary from 30 to 60 feet in width depending on the private road
classification, and other design considerations.
All of the proposed.right-of-way widths meet or exceed the requirements of this criterion
and CMP Exhibit V.
2. Section 17.48.160. Road D.evelopment Reauirements — 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
FINDING: As noted, the proposed standards for Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius
Drive are in accordance with the CMP Exhibit V. Other internal roads will be private and
maintained by resort homeowners association(s).
F Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall have a length of less than six
hundred feet, unless a longer length is approved by the
applicable fire protection district, and more than one hundred
feet from the center of the bulb to the intersection with the
main road. The maximum grade on the bulb shall be four .
percent.
FINDING: According to the applicant, cul-de-sacs are necessitated by the golf course
layout. Due to the golf course and topographic constraints; three cul-de-sacs in excess
of 600 feet In length are proposed. They are: road. 'D' near the east resort boundary,
745 feet in length; road 'it' south of Metolius Drive, 1,135 feel in length, and road '0'
accessing Tots 170 through 186, 840 feet in length.
The TP has been reviewed by the applicable fire protection district, with comments from
the Bend Fire Department included above. No request for cul-de-sac re -design was
made by the Bend Fire Departrrient.
While the current topography of proposed Road D appears to exceed the four percent
grade, the Hearings Officer concludes•that the road can be further designed and graded
to meet the four percent maximum standard. A condition of approval Is imposed to •
assure compliance with the criterion.
3. Section 17.48.180. Private Roads.
The following minimum road standards shall apply for private roads: •
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 30 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 30 of 35
A. The minimum paved roadway width.shall.be twenty-four feet
in planned unit developmentsand cluster developments
containing twenty or more residential units when separate
. paved bicycle/pedestrian ways are provided In such
developments, the minimum paved roadway width shall be
twenty-eight.feet, including four-footwide bike lanes, and
two -foot wide gravel'shoulders;
FINDING: As approved in the CMP and FMP, private roads would be constructed to the
standards detailed in the Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Plan. The Plan allows for •
private rtacfs with a minimum paved width of 20 feet. The applicant anticipates many of
the private roads would be designed and constructed with 8.28 foot paved width, to allow
for one side on -street parking, in accordance with the Fire Marshal requirements. Some •
of the shorter cul-de-sacs may be constructed at the 20 foot paved width. The applicant
anticipates constructing mountable curbs on all private roads to provide for better
drainage control; delineation of the roadways, and accommodation of the utilities.
B. Minimum Radius of curvature, fifty feet;
C. Maximum grade, 'l2 percent;
FINDING: As indicated in the plans, all proposed private roads will meet this criterion.
D. At least one road name sign would be provided at each
intersection for each road.
FINDING: The applicant agrees to provide signage as required by this criterion.
E. A method for continuing roadmaintenance acceptable to the
. County; .
FINDING: The applicant would create a Home Owners Association in accordance with
State Law which would be responsible for continuing private road maintenance.
F. Private road systems shalt include provisions for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. Shoulder bike lanes shall be a minimum of
4 feet wide, paved and striped,. with no on -street parking
allowed within the bikeway. When private roads are
. developed to a width of less than 28 feet, bike paths
constructed to County standards shall be required.
FINDING: As noted above, the project will comply with CMP Exhibit V and the approved
Master Traiis.Pian, included as Exhibits TP -4 and TP -5 respectively. Those documents
include a resort wide multi -use trail system along the major roadways,' and soft surface
trails through- select open space areas.
TITLE 19 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, URBAN AREA RESERVE.
A. Chapter 19.106, Destination Resorts — Urban Area Reserve.
FINDING: The subject property is zoned Urban Area Reserve, within a Destination
Hearings Officer Dectston (TP -08-973) Page 31 of 35
Exhibit C
Paee 31 of 35
Resort overlay. Pursuant to section 19.106.020(B), when the provisions of the DR zone
are applicable, "they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone."
Therefore, the provisions of the Urban Area Reserve zone located in Chapter 19.12 are
not applicable to the subject proposal.
Condition of Approval #9 and #10 are imposed to ehsure compliance with applicable
approval criteria in this chapter.
IV. DECISION:
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, .the Hearings
!Officer concludes that the applicant has satisfied all .applicable approval criteria.
Accordingly, thls application is APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is based upon the submitted plan.. Any substantial change in the
Tentative Plan would require a new application.
2. The applicant shell have a licensed larid surveyor prepare a subdivision plat for
each phase which conforms to ORS Chapter 92 and DCC Title 17. The plat
shall contain a statement of water rights, and the certificate or permit number, if
a water right or permit is appurtenant to the subdivision. The final plat shall
include the exact lot sizes for each lot
3. All ad valorem taxes, fees, and other charges that have become a lien on the
property shall be paid.
4. Any and all proposed road names must be approved by the Property Address
Coordinator prior to final approval. Road signs shall be placed at all
intersections. Speed limit signs shall be required for the main road in the resort
shown on the tentative plat.
5. All existing and proposed multi-purpose trails, easements and rights-of-way
shall be shown on the final plat.
6. The final plat shall meet all requirements for necessary information as required
in Section 17.24.060 of the Deschutes County Code, acid have the subdivision
name approved by the County Surveyor.
7. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the applicant shall submit a Master Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for review and approval by the County.
The CC&Rs adopted by the developer and any amendments thereto shall
conform in all material respects tot his decision and the requirements of the
DCC. The CC&Rs shall include all pertinent development limitations and
property owner obligations identified in •the CMP, FMP and this decision,
including, but -not limited to: compliance with Firewise Comniifhlty standards,
wildlife mitigation development and funding provisions, height limitations and
setback requirements.
8. The applicant shall construct water and sewer lines to the boundary of each lot
in a phase to City of Bend standards and specifications, as required by 'Llcense
and Water and Sewer Service Agreement between City of Bend and Cascade
Highlands Limited Partnership'. Required water mains and service lines shall
be installed prior to the curbing and paving of new streets.
. Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 32 of 35
Exhibit C
Pur. t7nrtS
9. In conformance with DCC 19.106.060:
a. Prior to Final Plat Approval of the first phase, .the applicant shall secure
Site Plan a for ovemight lodging units to meet the 150 -unit
mi iii in ase I. These overnight accommodations shall be
constructed or financially assured prior to Final Plat Approval for Phase
I. No lots can be sold until the final plat is recorded.
b Prior to Final Plat Approval of the flrst phase, the applicant shall secure
Site Planaapp al for visitor -oriented eating establishments for at least
eeting rooms which provide eating for at least 100
person's in Phase I. These visitor -oriented eating establishments shall
be constructed or financially assured prior to Final Plat Approval for
Phase I.
c. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the applicant shall provide proof that at least
$7 million i shall be spent on Improvements in- • Phase I for on-site •
• •deyeloped recreational facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations
exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities, and roads. Not
less than one-third of this amount shall be • spent on developed..
recreational facilities. The spending minimums provided for are stated
in 1993 dollars.
d. Cumulatively and for.each phase, the development shall comply with the
open space standard set out in DCC 19.106.060(D)(1). Open space
shall be designated as such on the plat for each phase of development.
e. Cumulatively and for each phase, the development shall comply with the
individually -owned residential unit to visitor -oriented lodging ratio set out
in DCC 19.106.060(D)(2).
10:. The applicant shall provide documentation annually confirming that individually -
.owned units are available for rental, through a central reservation service if the
applicant proposes, to rely upon individually -owned units to meet the overnight
lodging unit standards. Documentation shall be submitted to the Planning
Division by the end of each calendar year.
• 11.. Exterior lighting shall comply with Deschutes County Lighting Ordinance and
would be checked during site plan and/or building permit review. . •
12. Prior to final plat or Site plan approval, the applicant shall submit a timeline for
completion of ODF&W wildlife impact mitigation recommendations. The Year 1
reporting. date, as. required in Mitigation Measure #15 In the approval Wildlife
Evaluation. (June 29, 20Q5), shall be due December 31,, 2006. Annual repotting
• to Deschutes County and ODFW shall continue thereafter.
13. The applicant shall . track and. report to .Deschutes County and Oregon
Department.of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the. $17,000 mitigation fee and $3,000
annual Maintenance fee as required by the Wildlife Evaluation. The it
and r- •.�� �r. .� • ; . :•a approved by Deschutes County and OD ri p
oval for the first phase.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 33 of 35 •
Exhibit C
Pave 33 of 35
14. Road improvement plans shall be approved by the County Road Department
prior to construction.
15. Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drive shall be designedand constructed to
the standards detailed In CMP Exhibit V.
16. j The roundabout at the intersection of Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drive
�,. shall be designed Jg,..a.3Q mph, speeds and shall be constructed according to
ODOT standard67
17. Private road design shall be in accordance with CMP Exhibit V.
18. Prior to -Final Plat Approval of the first phase, the applicant shall provide proof
of acceptance by the City of Bend, the Deed of Dedication for the segment of
Metolius Drive located within the Broken Top PUD.
.19. All surface water drainage from improvements within the tentative plan
boundaries shall be retained on site. Drywelis 'may not be used to
accommodate surface drainage from public roads. All drainage from the road
system shall be contained In DEQ -approved swales or retention basins. No
drywells shall -be constructed within the public right-of-way. The County shall
not accept dedication of drywells for maintenance or registration.
20, No Tots shall take direct access to Skyline Ranch Roadtor Metolius Drive.
21. 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 ORS 92.097.
22. The surveyor or engineer submitting the plat shall submit information showing
the location of the existing road in relationship to, the road right-of-way, on
behalf of the applicant to the County Road Department. This information can
be submitted on a worksheet and does not necessarily have to be on the final
plat. All existing road facilities and new road improvements are to be located
within legally established or dedicated right -of --ways. 0 research reveals that
inadequate right-of-way exists or that the existing -roadway is outside of the
legally established or dedicated right-of-way, the Applicant will work with 'the
Deschutes County Road Department or any other agency with Jurisdiction over
the road to meet applicable, standards and to vacate, In .accordance with
appropriate jurisdictional procedures; any portions of rights-of-way not needed
to meet the relevant standards.
•
23. Construction related traffic shag not be routed through the segment .of Metolius
Drive through the Broken Top PUD until such time as the road is accepted by
the City of Bend as a public road. This condition of approval shall be included in
CC&Rs for the development.
24. Any and all new proposed Road Names must be reviewed and approved by the
Property Address Coordinator.
25. On-slte grading shall comply with the requirements of DCC 17.36.230.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973) Page 34 of 35
Exhibit C
Paee 34 of 35
26. Ali temporary structures shall be limited to a maximum of 18 months at the resort
site.
27. Road access acid design shall comply with emergency access standards
promulgated by the Bend Fire Department. .
28. The applicant shall comply with all applicable fire protection standards required
by the Bend Fine Department
29. The final plan shell depict the 70-100 foot building setback from the property Ilne
of the Broken Top PUD as 'depicted on the tentative .plan. The final plan shall
depict a 20400t•building setback from the bluff rim for Tract AD.
30. Buildings constructed within.Tract AD shall not exceed 40 feet. .This condition
*shall be verified during site plan: review and/or building pian approval.
V. DURATION OF APPROVAL
Pursuant to DCC 1724.030, final plat approval, of the first phase of this proposed
subdivision shall be submitted within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes
final. The final plats for any subsequent phase shall be filed within three (3) years of
the recording date:of the final plat for the first phase. The applicant may apply for an
extension for any final plat under DCC 1724 in the manner provided for in DCC
17.24.020(B). If the applicant fails to file a final plat, the tentative plan for those phases
shall become null and void.
Dated this ctt4\ day of October, 2006
Mailed this I1 ay of October, 2006
A e Corcoran Briggs
Hearings Officer
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL 1F NOT APPEALED WITHIN 12 DAYS OF THE
DATE OF THIS DECISION.
Hearings Officer Decision (TP -06-973)
Page 35 of 35
Exhibit C
Page 35 of 35
11 ag
1r15C%ICO
GROMED
Bond No:DRAFT COPY FOR COUNTY REVIEW
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we,TD CASCADE HIGHLANDS, LLC, as Principal, and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND
INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of
the laws of the state of IOWA and duly licensed to conduct a general surety business in the state.
of OREGON as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON as
Obligee, in the sum of TWO MILLION, ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR
AND 40/100•S*******'"**** ($2,186,264.40) DOLLARS, for which payment well and truly to be
made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and successors, jointly and severally firmly by
these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH
WHEREAS, the above name Principal entered into
Obligee to construct in Deschutes County, Oregon
and installation of certain requested improve . is
Cascade HighlandsiTetherow Destination Res
approval in Deschutes County File No.
Agreement, Deschutes County Doc
NOW THEREFORE, the co
well and truly perform sai
extension of said term that
this obligation shall be void,
agreements with said
im • rovements: construction
fo PHASE 5 ' for the
rt"), as required in the conditions of
entative Plan") and the improvement
ob gation is such, that if the above Principal shall
cements during the original term thereof or of any
ted by the Obligee with or without notice to the Surety,
e it shall remain in full force and effect.
PROVIDED, this bond is not subject to cancellation pursuant to ORS 742.366(2).
PROVIDED, Surety hereby waives notice of any change, alteration, extension of time or
addition to the improvements authorized by the Obligee.
PROVIDED, in no event the Surety's aggregate liability exceed the penal sum as outlined above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the seal and signature of said Principal is hereto affixed and the
corporate seal and the name of said Surety is hereto affixed and attested by its duly authorized
Attorney -in -Fact at Lake Oswego, Oregon, thisday of
PRINCIPAL SURETY
TD CASCADE HIGHLANDS, LLC DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
BY BY
KEITH YAM, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Insco Insurance Services, Inc.
Five Centerpointe • Suite 530 • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • (503) 684-9606 • (800) 223-2451 • Fax (503) 684-4065 • http://www.InsCoDico.com
Underwriting Manager tor:
Developers Surety and Indemnity Company • Indemnity Company of California
CEO fg 1r t
Knife River
64500 OB Riley Road
Bend, OR 97701
Roger Langellers Construction (Concrete Construction)
62880 Mercury Place
Bend, OR, 97701
Central Oregon Ready Mix (Concrete Supplier)
1248 NE Greenwood Avenue
Redmond, OR 97756
EXE4(5IT" Cr