Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHO Decision - Tree Farm 2Fl LE N APP B M B DEC S ON OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER ERS: aJCANT: PROP E RTY 0' APP ATTO E LICANT' RN EY: oPPo ATTO O EN RN TSF 247-14-000244- U. 247 -14 -000245 -TP The Tree Fenn LLC 409 N.W. Franklin Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Miller Tree >.Farm 110 N,E, Greenwood Avertr Bend, Oregon 97701 Jeffrey G. Condit - Miller Nash LLP 111 S.W. 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 Portland, Oregon 97204 EYS Myles A. Conway - Marten Law RE '£ DEBT: 404 S.W. Columbia Street, Suite 212 Bend, Oregon 97702 Attorney for Rio Lobo Investments Paul Dewey - Central Oregon Land 50 S.W. Bond Street, Ste. Bend, Oregon 97702 Attorney for Central Oregon LandWatch +Betch The applicant requests conditional use, tentative plan and site plan approval for a ten -lot cluster/planned unit development (PUD) on a 104.2 -acre parcel in the UAR-10, RR -10 and WA Zones north of Skyli€ners Road and west of Skyline Ranch Road on the west side of Bend. This proposal is identified as "Tree Farm 2." it is part of a proposed 50 -lot cluster/PUD on five contiguous legal lots totaling approximately 533 acres, identified a "The Tree Farm," The applicant submitted four other applications for The Tree Fare (Tree Farre 1, 3, 4 and 5), with the following file num bers: Tree Farm 1: 247 -14 -000242 -CU, 247-14-00024 -TP" Tree Farm 3: 247 -14 -000240 -CU, 247 -14 -000247 -TP Tree Farm 4: 247 -14 -000248. -CU, 247 -14 -000240 -TP Tree Farm 5: 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247 -'14 -000251 -TP. STAFF REVIEWER: Anthony Ragtime, senior Planner R EARING DATES: CORD CLOS E N overnber 6 a rid 20, 2014 I January 13, 2015 Tree Farm 2, 247.14-0 00244-CiJ, 247-14 0002451 -TP Page 1 f 114 APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Title 17 of t ha he Deschutes County Code, the Subdivision/Partition n Ordinance, pter 17,08 * Section 17.0 Definitions and Interpretation of Language 8.0 30, Definitions Gen erally' Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative DevelopmentPlans * Section 17.16.100, Required Findings for Approval *>>Section 17.16.105, Access to Subdivisions * Section 17.16.115, Traffic Impact Studies Cha pter 17.36, Dein Standards plans and Master • Section 17.36.020, Streets * Section 17.36.040, Existing Streets * Section 17.36.050, Continuation of Streets * Section 17.36.060, Minimurn Right -of -Way and Roadway Width * Section 17.36.070, Future Resubdivision * Section 17.36.080, Future Extension of Streets *>>Section 17.36.100, Frontage Roads * Section 17,36,110, Streets Adjacent to Railroads, Freeways and Parkways *..Section 17.36.120, Street Names * Section 17.36.130, Sidewalks * Section 17.36.140, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Rdquirednents *'.Section 17.36.150, Blocks * Section 17.36.160, Easements * Section 17.36.170, Lots — Size and Shape * Section 17.36.180 Frontage * Section 17.36.190, Through Lots * Section 17.36.200, Corner Lots • Section 17,36,210 Solar Access Performance *<Section 17.36.220, Underground Facilities * Section 1736,260, Fire Hazards * Section 17.36.280, Water and Sewer Lines * Section 17.36.290, Individual Wells *>.Section 17.36.300, Public Water System 4. Chapter 1 7.44 Park naval opment * 'Section 17.44.010, Dedication of Land * Section 17,44.020'. Fee in Lieu of Dedicates n Chapter 17,48, Desi n an d Construction Specifics * Section 17.48.140, Bikeways *'Section 17.48.160, Road Devslopmsn * Section 17.48.180, Private Roads Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP tions Requirements — Standards Page 2 of 1 14 * Sectio n 17,49,190, Drainag e Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code11, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:;; c ha pter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions ection 18.04.030, Chapter 18.6 Defin tions' 0, Rural Resid ent alZone m * Section 10,60,030, Conditional toes Permitted * Section 18.60.060. Dimensional Standards ha pter 18.8 8 VVild *'Section 18.8 * >>Section 10.6 * Section 10.8 * »Section 16.8 life Area Corn 8.010, 6.020, 8.040, 5.050. rainti g Zo ne VVA Purpose Application of Provisions uses Permitted Condtionally Dimensional Standards * Section 10.60.060, Siting Standards * Section 18.88.070, Fence Standards Cha pter 16.128, Conditional vises * Section 18.129,015, General Standards Gove *>.Section 16.126.04:0, Specific Use Standards • Section 18.128.200, Cluster Develk ment (S Only) *'Section 18.128.210, Planned Title 19 of the Deschutes Co Development unty Cod e the Ben d Urb rn€ng Conditional U ses nle-Family Residential an Area 1. Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone - UA -10 * Section 19.12.030, Conditional Uses • Section 19.12.040, Height Requrerents * Section 19.12.050, Lot Requirements c hapter 19.76, Site Plan >.Review * Section 19.76.070, Site Plan Criteria * Section 19.76.080, Required Minimum Standards c h apter 19.100, Conditional U se Permits ^;'Section 19.100.030, General Conditional Use Critena Chapte r 19.104 Plan * Section 19.104.010, * Section 19.104.040, ned Unit Deveioprnent A Purpose M p R rova Minium Size for Planned'U Tree Parra 2, 247.14 -000244 -CU, 247.14 -000245 -TP Zonin g Ordina t Developments Uses ce Page 3 of 114 * Section 19.104.076, Standard 'F action 19.014.080, Standard darn Title 22 of the Deschutes C Desch 1 Cha pter 22.64 ntro *;Section 22.04,62 Cha ounty Cod day ctlon a n s for Approval s and th d Defi 0, Definitions pter 22.0 8, General Provisions Requirements Dev&1 rsitlon opment Procedures Ordinance * Section 22°08.020, Acceptance of Application * Section 22.08.030, incomplete Applications • Section 22.08.030, Palsy Statements on Application and Su Document Section 22.05.070, Time Computation Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications * Section 22.20.055, Chapte r 22,21 M od €fication of Ap Land Use Actin plication n Hearings "Section 22.24.140, Continuances and Record Extensions utes County Com pre hensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Bend Area General Plan 1, Cha pter 5, H ousing and Redd Oregon Administrative ,,,Rules Development Commission Division 4, ential Land 5 (OAR) Ch apta Goal Exceptions Process pporting 660, Land Conservation a n d' * ' OAR 660-004-0040(7), Application of Goal 14 (Urbanization) to Rural, Residential Areas Division 11 Publi' Facilities Planning * OAR 660-011-0065, Water Service to Rural Lands FINDINGS OF FACT: Location: The Tree Farm Including Tree Farm 2 has an assigned address of 18900 S yliners Road, Bend. The Tree Fara consists of Tax Lots 6202, 6205, 6207, 6208, 6209, 6210, 6211 and 6213 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-11. Tree Farm 2, 247-14--000244--CU, 247-14-000245-T Fag e4af114; Zoning and Plan Designation: The western approximately 393 acres of The Tree Farm are zoned Rural Residential (RR -10) and Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA) associated with the Turnalo Deer Winter Range, and are designatedRural Residential Exception Area (RREA) on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map. The eastern approx mately 140 acres of The Tree Farm are zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10} and are designated Urban Area Reserve (UAR) on the Bend Area Genera Pan map. Tree Farm 2 is zoned UAR-10, RR -10 and WA and is designated UAR and RREA,, Site Description. The Tree Farre, of which the proposed Tree Farm 2 is a part, is approximately 533 acres in size, irregular in shape, vacant, and with varying topography. The dominant topographical feature of The Tree Farm property is a ridge running from southwest to northeast forming the southeast rim of Tunnalo Creek Canyon. The top of this ridge is generally flat to rolling, with steeper slopes in the northwest where it drops off toward Turala Creek, and also on the southeast -facing slopes in the middle of the property.There are views of the Cascade Mountains from the western part of this central ridge and views of Bend from the southeast side of the central ridge. The property has scattered rock outcrops, Elevation ranges from approximately 3 700 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the east side of the property to approximately 4,000 feet AMSL in the center of the property. The western part of the property drains west to Tur ale Creek; the eastern part drains east to the Deschutes River.' The western portion of The Tree Farm is covered''' with a mature forest consisting of ponderosa pine and western juniper trees and native brush and grasses. The record indicates The Tree Farm property has been managed for timber production. The applicant's burden of proof states, and the Hearings Officer's site visit observations confirmed, that there is very little old growth timber on The Tree Farm. Much of the eastern part of The Tree Farm is covered with sage -steppe vegetation and few trees.,, This part of the property was burned in the 1990 Awbrey Hall Fire. Portions of the burned area have been replanted with trees, although my site visit observations confirmed these trees are too small to be harvested. The property is traversed by dirt roads that were part of a logging road network, These roads can be seen on aerial photographs 'included in the record and I observed them during my site visit; The applicant proposes to obliterate much of this dirt road network and to revegetate the old road beds. The property has wire fencing, most of which would be removed, Tree Farm 2 is 104.2 acres in size. It abuts Tree Farm 1 on the east, Skyliners Road on the south. Tree Farm 3 on the west, and undeveloped UAR-10 zoned property on the north. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Us West. Abutting The Tree Farm on the west is Shevlin Park, a 652 -acre regional park consisting of open space, an extensive trail'' network, and some developed' amenities. Shevlin Park is owned and managed by the Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District (park district), arsd„€s zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C). Near the southwest corner of the subject property is the City of Bend's 'Outback Water Facility, consisting of groundwater wells, pumps, above-grround, water storage facilities, and The Tree Fara topography is described' in d December 8, 2014, and included in the record. et Tree Farre 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247' -14 -000245 -TP i iri 'th H earirgs Officer` site visit report dated' Page 5 of 114 water pipes conveying water into the city. Existing utility poles and overhead lines run along the north side of Skyliners Road to serve this facility. To the west and southwest across Skyliners Road is public forest land zoned Forest Use (F-1) and managed by the USFS as part of the Deschutes National Forest (DNF). West of hevlin Park is private forest land zoned F-1,. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the largest part of this private forest land, approximately 33.000 acres in multiple tax lots, was owned and managed by Cascade Timberlands Oregon LLC (Cascade Timberlands). Other private forest -zoned parcels to the northwest of Shevlin Park are much smaller. North, To the north of The Tree Farre is a 376 -acre tract of vacant la and owned by Rio Lobo Investments LLC (Rio 'Lobo)., nd zo ed UAR-i 0' East. To the east is vacant land owned by Miller Tree Farm and zoned LAR -10. Farther east are three public schools within the Bend' LaPine School District (school district) -- Miller Elementary School, Pacific Crest Middle School (under construction), and Summit' High School. The schools are located within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and city I mics and are zoned PIodic Facilities (PF). Also to the east within the Bend UGB is North 'est Crossing, a mixed-use development including residential, commercial industrial, and public facility uses on land within multiple city zoning districts. South. To the southeast across Skylin rs Road is The Highlands at Broken Top PUD, zoned LIAR -10 and developed with thirty-seven roughly 10 -acre lots with dwellings: Farther southeast is the Tetherow Destination Resort developed with dwellings, a golf course, and a lodge Land Use History: The Tree Farm property has been owned by the Miller family since the 1950's, The record indicates this property historically was managed for timber production as part of the >larger Miller Tree Farm, including periodic harvesting and thinning activities. The eastern portion of Tree Farm 2 was in the path of the 1990 Avwbrey 'Hall Fire which burned several thousand acres between the northern edge of Shevlin,>Park and U.S. Highway 97 to the southeast, In June 2014, the applicant obtained lot -of -record determinations for The Tree Farm property recognizing' five legal loots of record (LR -14-16, LR -14-17, LRw14-18, LR -14-19 LR -14-20). The applicant also obtained approval of ten lot line adjustments reconfiguring boundaries for the five legal lots of record (LL -14-17 through LL -14-20). Deeds reflecting the adjusted boundaries of the five legal'''lots were recorded on October 17, 2014. Procedural History: The Tree Farm applications were submitted on August 5, 2014. The Planning Division sent the applicant an incomplete letter on September 9, 2014, identifying certain missing inforration and allowing the applicant 30 days to submit additional information, The applicant submitted the missing information on September 19, 2014. However, the staff report states that because the incomplete letter was not provided to the applicant within 30 days of the date the applications were submitted, as required by ORS 215.427(2) and Section 22.08.030 of the Development Procedures Ordinance, the county considers he applications to have been deemed corrmpk te o September 5, 2014. Therefore, the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215,427 would have expired on February 2,2014. A consolidated pub November 6, 2014. Tree Farm 2, 247-14-00 lic hearing on the five Tree Farm applications was scheduled' On November 4. 2014, the Hearings Officer conducted a site visi 0244 -CU, 247 14 -000245 -TP Page 6 of 114 the subject property accompanied by Senior Planner Anthony Raguine. Due to work occurring on the nearby utility lines, some roads adjacent to and within the Tree Farm were not ''accessible, so the site visit was terminated. By a letter dated November 4, 2014, the applicant requested that the hearing be continued to November 20, 2014. At the November 6, 2014, hearing the Hearings Officer disclosed my limited observations from the abbreviated site visit, received testimony and evidence, and continued the hearing to November 20, 2014. At the continued public hearing,;;the Hearings Officer announced my intention to conduct another site visit and to issue a written site visit report. I also received testimony and evidence, left''' the written evidentiary record open through December 23 2014, and allowed the applicant through December 30, 2014 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763 On December 3, 2014 the Hearings Officer conducted another site visit to the subject property and vicinity, again accompanied by Mr. Raguine, and on December 8, 2014, I issued a written site visit report. On December 19, 2015, Mr. Raguine issued a staff' memorandum >.addressing the status of the proposed private roads in the Tree Farm, By a letter dated December 22, 2014, the applicant requested that the written record be extended to allow additional time to respond to the staff memorandum. By an order dated December 23, 2014; the Hearings Officer extended the written evidentiary record through January 6, 2015, and allowed the applicant to submit final argument through January 13, 2015. The applicant submitted final argument' on January '13, 2015 and the record closed on that date. Because the applicant requested that the public hearing be continued from November 6 to November 20, 2013 (a period of 14 days), and agreed to leave the written record open from November 20, 2014, through January 13., 2015 (a period of 54 days), under Section 22.24.140 the 150 -day period was tolled for 68 days and now expires on April 13, 2015.2 As of the date of this decision there remain 27 days in the extended 150 -day period. Proposal: The applicant requests conditional use, site plan, and tentative plan approval to establish a 50 -lot cluster/FUD to be called The Tree Farm on approximately 533 acres west of the Bend UGB. The Tree Farm would ' include five contiguous cluster/PUDs with a total of 100 acres of residential lots, 422.8 acres of open space tracts, and 10.6 acres of road right-of-way. The boundaries of the five cluster6PUDs coincide with the boundaries of the five legal lots of record recently reconfigured through the aforementioned lot line adjustments. Each cluster/PUD would have ten 2 -acre residential' lots, an open space tract, segments of the public and private road system, and mixed- use trails conn€ecting;, to trails in Shevlin Park and the DNF. Tree Farms 1 th ough 4 would include land in the UAR.-10, RR -10 and WA Zones. Tree Farm 5 would be located'' entirely within the RR -10 and WA<Zones The subject application is for Tree Farrt.1 2 which would consist of 104,2 acres with ten dwellings on ten 2 -acre lots (Lots 1-10) clustered near the northeast corner of The Tree Farm. Tree Farm 2 would have an 02.0 -acre open space tract and 1,4 acres, of right-of- ,ay ight-of- , y.:� The residential; lots would have access to Stcyliners Road, a county collector road, 2 Because the 150th day falls on Saturday April' 11, 2018, and because under Section 22.08,070 weekends and holidays are excluded from time computations, the 150th day is April 13 > 201 u. ,' Tree Farms 1, 3, 4 and 5 would have the following characteristics: Tree Farm 2, 247-14-€ 00244 -CU, 247 -14 -000240 -TP Page 7 of 114 via two new private roads, Tree Farm Drive and Ridgeline 'Drive, over which the applicant proposes to ded€cate permanent public access easements. Tree Farm Drive and Ridgeline Drive would run through Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 before connecting to Skyliners Road, and therefore the applicant proposes to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and concurrently. The applicant also proposes to construct a gated temporary emergency access road on an easement extending from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive at the southern boundary of Tree Farm 1 south across the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive, a public street within the Bend UGB that connects to Bkyliners Road The emergency access would operate until the Miller Tree Farm property is developed with public roads to which Sage Steppe Drive would connect.4 Lots in Tree Farm 2 would be served by on site sewage disposal systems. They would receive domestic water from one of three alternative sources. (1) extension of and connection to the City of Bend water system; (2) service from Avon Water Company; or (3) water pumped from one or more private groundwater wells on The Tree Farm and/or the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property. Tree Farre 2 dwellings would have fire protection from the Bend Fire Department and police protection from the Deschutes County Sheriff: The applicant proposes that the entire Tree Farm development would comply with the 'Firewise Community.' standards for fire prevention. The Tree Farm 2 open space''tr would be subject to deed restrictions preventing future development thereon. act H. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the, applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Road Department (road department), Property Address Coordinator, Building Division, Senior Transportation Panner, and Forester;, the City of Bend Fire Department (fire department); the park district; and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 3-9 of the Tree Farm 2 staff report and are included in the record. The following agencies either did not respond to the request for comments or subrr€itted ''no comment"' responses: the Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Assessor, and Surveyor; the City of Bend Planning Division, Engineering Division, and Public Works Department (public works); the USFS DNF; the Oregon Department of Water Resources, ' 'atermaster- District' 11; the school district. Bend Broadband; Cascade Natural' Gas;' CenturyLink; and Pacific Power. Agency comments are addressed in the find ---------------- €ngs below. Tree Fara 1: Lots 1-10 105.3 acres total; 81.1 acres of open space, of which 39.9 acres be in the RR -1 g' + A Zones; and 4.2 acres of right-of-way; Tree Farm 3: Lots 21-30; 106 9 acres total; 83.8 acres of open space, of wh in the RR --10 'vA Zones; and 3.1 acres of right-of-way; Tree Farm 4: Lots 31-40; 1 cores total, 87.7 acres of open space. of which 85 7 be in the RR-10/VVA Zones; and 1.7 acre=s of right-of-way; and Tree Fare 5: Lots 41-50; 107.6 acres total; 87.4 acres of open space, all of which RR -1 #fAt?t'A Zones. and 0 2 acres of right--of-wa> A The tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 also shows potential right-of-way Ranch Road, a designated county collector road that has been de ..a north and south of the Miller Tree Farts and Rio Lobo prop north from Crosby Drive through the Mi€ler Tree Farr, pr and onto the Rio Lobo property, could h 82 acres would be Tree Farm 2, -4/-14-000244-CU, 247--114-000245-TP fromu and ernes. The potentia r:g erty and the northeast corner o ores would .tension cit Skyline improved in segrflents ht -of -way would extend 1 Page8of114 Public Cor rents. The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the initial public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 250 feet of the subject property's boundaries. The record indicates this notice was nailed to the owners of twenty-six tax 'bats. In addition, notice of the ir-€itial public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the county had received thirteen letters from the public in response to these notices. In addition, four members of the public testified at the continued public hearing >Public comments are addressed in the findings below. Lot of Record: The county determined Tree Farm 2 is a legal lot of record pursuant to a 2014 lot -of -record determination (LR -14-17). The current configuration of Tree Farm 2 is the result of a series of 2014 lot line adjustments (LLT14-17 through LL -14-26). III: CON CLUSIO NS OF LAW: A. SUMMARY: The Hearings Officer has found that with two significant exceptions, Tree Farm 2 satisfies, or with imposition of conditions of approval will satisfy, the applicable approval criteria in the relevant administrative rules and the provisions of Titles 17, 18, 19 and 22 of the Deschutes County Code. 1 have found the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with a number of criteria related to wildlife habitat and wildfire risks. >Specifically,I have found the applicant's proposed Wildlife Assessment and Management Plan (WMP), and Wildfire Protection and Management Pan (wildfire, plan) are not adequate, and cannot be made adequate through imposition of conditions of approval, to demonstrate the risk of wildfire can be reduced to an acceptable level' while protecting winter deer range habitat- For these reasons, I cannot approve the application for Tree Farm 2. However, I anticipate this decision will be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners (board). Therefore, in order to assist the board and county staff in the event of such appeal, I have included in this decision findings of fact and conclusions of law on all applicable standards and criteria. as well as recommended conditions of approval. S. PRE L M NARY ISSUES: Completeness and Status of Application. FINDINGS: In June of 2014, the county issued ''lot-of-record`»determinations written by Associate Planner Cynthia Smidt and confirming the existence of five legal lots of record comprising The Tree Farm ((LRw14-16 through LR414L20). Ms. Smidt also issued a series of decisions approving lot line adjustments for the five legal lots of record creating the current configurations of the five Tree Farre developrnents (LL -1'1-17 through LL -14-23). Each of the lot -line -adjustment> decisions included the following six conditions for final approval: (a) obtaining approval of all lot line adjustments; (b) obtaining surveys of the reconfigured lots and filing the surveys with the Deschutes County Surveyor; (3) submitting to the Planning Division legal descriptions of the lowly reconfigured leas; (4) recording new deeds reftecting the new lot configurations; (F) paying all property taxes for the affected tax lots; and (6) complying with all development setbacks from the reconfigured lot lines. The record does not indicate whether or to what extent these conditions of approval > had been met at the time The Tree Farm applications were filed and the record for the applications closed. Tre, Farre 2, 247. -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 9 of 114 The record indicates the deeds required pursuant to Condition 4 of the lot-lirse-adjustment decisions were recorded on October 17, 2014, nearly ten weeks after the applicant submitted its Tree Farm applications and nearly six weeks after the applications were deemed complete. Mr Ra uine's September 9, 2014 incomplete letter for The Tree Farm applications does not refer to compliance with the lot -line -adjustment conditions of approval. The record does include a copy of an October 29, 2014 electronic mail message from the applicant's representative Bony Mortensen to Ms, Smidt, copied to Mr. Ral uine, stating the deeds had been recorded. The burden of proof for each of the five Tree Farm applications states the property subject to the application is a legal lot of record as configured on the submitted tentative plan. However, those statements were, not correct because not all lot line adjustment conditions of approval had been satisfied and therefore the lot line adjustments were not final. The question is whether these misstatements affect the Hearings Officer's consideration of The Tree Farm applications. Section 22.08.035 of the development procedures ordinance states: If the applicant or the applicant's representative or apparent representative makes a misstatement of fact on the application regarding property ownership, authority to submit the application, > acreage, or any other fact material to the acceptance or approval of the application, and such misstatement is relied upon by the Planning Director or Hearings Body in making a decision whether to accept or approve the application, the Planning' Director may upon notice to the applicant and;. subject to an applicant's right' to a hearing declare the application void. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's misstatements concern facts materia to acceptance or approval of the Tree Farm applications — i.e.; the legal status and configuration of the five;, lots comprising the five proposed Tree Farm developments. Flowever, the record indicates all'' five Tree Farm applications were deemed complete as required by law, Moreover, the Planning Director has not declared the applications void, and l find he is not likely to do so since he referred The Tree Farm applications for a hearing, and the required deeds were recorded before the record closed. For these reasons, l find I may consider The Tree Farm applications, Nevertheless, l find that to assure all lot -line -adjustment conditions of approval are satisfied, the applicant will be required as a conn€tion of approval, and before submitting the final >.plat of any Tree Farm development for approval, to demonstrate to the Panning,' Division that all such conditions have been met, 2 lillodification of Application, FINDINGS. As discussed in the findings 'below concerning compliance with the PUD requirements in Title 19, the applicant has requested approval of a number of exceptions to the standard regulations for Tree Farm 2. 'Several exceptions were identified in the applicant's burden of proof, and several additional exceptions were requested through subsequent correspondence from the applicant. Section 22.20.058 allows an applicant to modify an application up to the close of the record, but prohibits the Hearings Officer r frotTi Cons id ering a modification without the filing of a Codification application. Section 22.20.055(D) authorizes me to determine whether an applicant's submission constitutes a modification, defined in Section 22.04.020 as: * 'x * the applicant's submittal of new informatlion after an appllication has been eemed compete and prior to the close of the Tree Farrr;,2, 247-14- 0244- 244-E U, 247-14- 0245 cord on a pending application Page 10 of 114 that would modify, a development,; proposal by changing one or more of the following previously described components: proposed uses, operating characteristics, intensity, <scale, site layout (including but not limited to changes in setbacks, access Points, build rig design, size or orientation, parking, traffic, or pedestrian circulation plans), or landscaping in a manner that requires the application of new criteria to the proposal or that would require the findings of fact to be changed. It does not mean an applicant's submission of new evidence that merely clarifies or supports the pending application. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's requests for exceptions, and its arguments in support of those request, and submitted following the date the application was deemed complete do not constitute modifications. That is because they do not change the developrnent proposal. Rather, they seek approval of various aspects of the applicant's proposal as shown on the tentative plans and in the burden of proof statements. I also findthey constitute new evidence that clarifies and supports the applicant's proposal. Therefore, I find I can consider all of the applicant's requested exceptions without' the need for modification applications. Effect of Split Zoning. FINDINGS: The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 include land n three zones w_ UAR-10,RR-10 and WA -- established and governed by two separate zoning ordinances -- Title 18 (RR -10 and WA) and Title 19 (UAR 10). As discussed below, the Hearings Officer previously has considered development applications on split -zoned property. However, because of the complexity of The Tree Farre applications and the large number of applicable standards R I' find it is appropriate at the outset to address how these zones will be applied to The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2. Permitted Uses,. Sections 18.60030(E) and (F), respectively, permit conditionally in the RR_10 Zone 'planned development"' and "cluster development," defined in Section 10.04.000' as: "Cluster development" means a development perrnittin or multi -family residences on a part of the property, with than two acres in size and not exceeding three acres industrial uses not allowed by the applicable zoning ord g the clustering of single, individual lots of not less n size. No commercial or nan ce are permitted. "Planned development" means the development of an area of and at least 40 acres in size for a number of dwelling units, commercial or industrial uses, according to a plan which does not necessarily correspond in lot size, bulk or type of dwelling, density, lot coverage, or required open space to the standard regulations othervuise required by DCC Title 18, and usually featuring a clustering of esidential'units. "Planned unit development," see "planned development" Section 18.00.040 Zone is combined a provides that uses permitted conditionally ',i re permitted conditionally in the WA Zone. n the zone with which the WA Section 19.12.03G(N) pe'r`mits :rr nditrc nilly in the UA1' -10 Zone "planned grit devetopmet defined in Section 19.04.040 as folio "Planned unit development'' means the development of an area of land as a single entity for a number of units or a number of uses, according; to a plan which does not necessarily correspond in lot size, ''bulk or type of dwelling, density, lot' Tree Fara>2, 47-14-0 00244 -CU, 247. -14 -000245 -TP lege 11 tit 11 4 coverage or requ by DCC Tit 19. iced open s pace to the andard re ulatiions otherwise req wired Although `;planned unit development" in the UAR-10 Zone does not expressly permitclustering of dwellings, the Hearings, Officer finds clustering is the type of deviation from standard regulations contemplated in a PUO All proposed Tree Farre lots will be at least two acres developments will be at lest 40 acres in size. As discussed in size, and all five Tree Farm in the findings below, the applicant has requested clusterFUD' approval in order to deviate in several respects from the standard regulations under Titles 18 and 19, For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 fall within the definitions of "cluster development," "planned development." and "planned' unit development" in Titles 18 and 19. Because the proposed cluster/PUDs are permitted conditionally in all three zones, l find the split -zoning does not preclude approval of The Tree Farm or Tree Farm 2 on the subject property. See: Eofa Glen Neighborhood Assoc, v. City of Salem, 25 Or LUBA 672 (1993) (residential subdivision allowed on property's, split rural residential and rural agricultural zones where use permitted in both zones); Roth v. Jackson County, 38 Or LUBA 894 (2000) (winery allowed on split -zoned property's agricultural zone, but', not on its suburban residential zone where winery is r€ot a permitted use); Effect of Zone Boundaries. Tree Farrres 1 through 4 straddle the boundary between the UAR- 10 and RR-10/"WA Zones which is the line between Sectbns '''88 and 34. As a result, the proposed lots, open space tracts, roads. and trails are located in all three zones.5 As a general'' rule, regulations applicable to a specific zone are not applied outside the boundaries of that zone, The Hearings Officer finds application of that general' rule is particularly appropriate in the case of overlay, or combining zones established to protect identified resources with specific geographic or site boundaries, such as the WA>Zone.5 As discussed in the findings below under the WA Zone, Section 18.88.020 applies that zone to areas designated "winter deer range'" an dentified resource with mapped boundaries. The WA Zone provisions are directed at protecting, that specific habitat and minimizing conflicting uses therewith. For these reasons, l find the WA Zone regulations do not apply to the areas of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 located outside the WA Zone boundaries. With respect to base zones such as the RR -10 and UAR-10 Zones, the Hearings Officer finds there are circumstances in which application of the general rule, that zoning regulations do not apply outside the zone boundaries, may not be appropriate. For example, in Sola Glen, cited above, LUBA appears to have found that because the proposed residential subdivision was permitted in both zones on the property, review and approval of the proposal could be based on application of requirements in both zones. This Hearings Officer reached a similar conclusion in my 2006 decision in, Hodgen (CU -06-53, Sig -06 19. LM1-00-70, IvL-06-48). Ir that case, the applicant requested conditional use and site plan approval to establish a private fishing lodge on It appears rrorn ties afoft�mmntion. d iot4iE aolustnient deecisions that this ;s€.}I;.t zoning ex;eted i#r the original c5onfigurabon of the five legal hats of record comprising The Tree Farr, S E.xarnplds cf si ailar geographically specific combining zones in Title 18 are: (a) the Landscape Management (Ll€} done in Chapter 18.84 (protecting designated scenic roads and waterwaysu; (b) the Sensitive Bird and Habitat (SBMH) Zone in Chapter 18.90 (protecting bird nests and breeding` gra nds) and (c) the Airport Safety (AS) Zone in Chapter 18.80 (protecting airport approach zones). Tree Far rn 2, 247.14 -000244 -CU, 247.14 -000248 -TP Page 12 of 114 property zoned F-1 and F-2. The applicant also requested a lot line adjustment that would create a split -zoned parcel on which some of the fishing lodge, facilities would be located 1 made the following re event findings "Split zoning generally is not favored because it may complicate application of rid use regulations to development on the property. However, where, as here, ations governing the lWY?'''' and F-2 Zones are very similar; the proposed private fishing accommodations are allowed conditionally in both zones, and the standards for this conditional use are identical in each zone, the Hearings Officer finds such split zoning is appropriate." As in toren, The Tree Farm applications propose cluster/PUDs permitted in both the UAR-10 and RR -10 Zones. The general conditional use standards applicable to cluster/PUDs under Sections 18.128.015 and 19.100.030 are very similar. However, as discussed below, the specific conditional use standards applicable to cluster developments and PUDs in Tittle 18 differ in many respects from the specific PUD standards in Title 19. Therefore, the question is whether applying the standards in Titles 18 and 19 only to those portions of Tree Farms 1 through 4 located within the RR -10 and UAR 110 Zones, respectively, would allow meaningful' review of each cluster/PUD as a whole.' The Hearings Officer finds it would not because such segmented review would artificially segregate portions of these developments based soler on the location ofa section line, and without regard to the nature and scope of the standards applicable to cluster;FUDs. Accordingly, ! find that to the extent feasible, l veill apply the applicable provisions of the RR -10 and UAR-10 Zones to the proposed Tree Farm 2 in its entirety. ADMINISTRATIVE RULES B. Oregon Adm Commission istrative Rules, Cha Division 4, Goa p ter $ 0, Land Conservation 2 ''Exceptions Process OAR 60..004-0040, Application of Goal 14 to Rura (1) (2) and Deve opment Residential Areas The purpose of this rule is to specify how Statewide Planning Coal 14, Urbanization, applies to moral lands in acknowledged exception areas planned for residential uses. (a) This rule applies' 'to lands that are not within an urban growth boundary, that are planned and zoned primarily for residential uses', and for which an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), Goal 4 (Forest Lands), or both has been taken. Such lands are referred to in this as rural residential areas. 7 As noted above Tree (b) Sections (1) to (8) of this rule do not apply to the creation of a lot or parcel, or to the development or use of one single- ' mil ingle-famit home on such ''lot or parcel, vvhere the application for partition or subdivision was filed with the local government and deemed to be complete in accordance with ORS IS of split zoned as it is located enti Tree Farm 2, 247-14- 244 -CU 247 -14 -000245 -TP iy within the PF -10 Zoite. Page 13 ct 114'' 215427(3) before the effecti a date of Section (1) t rule., (c) This rule does not apply to types of an through (H) of this subsection: (A) and insid boundary;' (B) e a n acknow ed g ed u 8) this d Ileted i (A) Than rowth land inside an acknowledged unincorporated community boundary established pursuant to OAR Chapter 660 Division 022; C) land; in an acknowledged ' urban reserve established pursuant to OAR Chapter 660, D 021;, (D), land (E) (F) (G) H) in acknowl d pursuant to a area vision ed destination resort established pplicable land use statutes and goals; resource land nonresou as defi rce Ian ned in OAR 66 d,asd ned 0-004-0005(2); n OAR 660-004-0005(3); marginal land, as defined in 0 Edition land planned and zoned pri commercial or public use., RS rily for 197.247, 19 ur. 91 h illus rial, FINDINGS: The applicant and staff identified this administrative rule as applicable to The Tree Farm in general, and to Tree Farm 2 in particular, because the proposed cluster/PUDs are on land located outside the Bend UG, zoned LIAR -1 g,, RR -10 and WA, and designated UAR and RRA. The Hearings Officer is aware the county's R-10 zoned lands were acknowledged as exception areas at the time the county's comprehensive, plan initially was acknowledged in 1979. Therefore, I find the RR -10 zoned land within The Tree Farm constitutes a 'rural residential areasubject to this administrative rule because it is not '''included in any of the exceptions in Paragraph (2) (c). With respect to land within Tree Farm 2 zoned UA . 10, the record indicates this urban reserve area was acknowledged but was not established pursuant to Division 21 of OAR Chapter 660. In 2003, former county hearings officer Tia Lewis issued a decision approving the nearby The Highlands, at Broken Top FUD on LIAR -10 zoned land (Cascade Highlands (CU-02.73/TP-02- 931)). Ms, Lewis concluded this adr inistrative rule was applicable to the UAR-10 Zone west of Bend based on the following findings: TilEa agrees with Stff rli t the . st.rl3tr:a property is local- neither ace <tneiither inside an acknowledged urban growth hounder)/ nor inside an acknowledged unincorporated cornrrunity. In addition, although located in the urban reserve area, the record indicates that the County's urban reserve area was established in 1979 prior to the State requiring knowledgmen of urban r_e_ erye....prem_ Further, the land is not an acknowledged destination restart; Tree Parra 2, 247-14-0OO244-CU, 247-14.00 0245 Tl Page 14 of 114 The ap pl resource land, r?onresource land, marginal or zoned for rural lndustriat,, commercial or public rrsa. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this rule is applicable to the applicant's'' proposal.' (Emphasis added.) Hearings Officer agrees with Ms. Lewis' analysis and finds this administrative ru cable to the portion of Tree Farm 2 zoned and designated t.lA . (7) e also is (a) The creation of any new lot or parcel smailer than two acres in a neral residential area shall be considered an urban use. Such a lot or parcel may be created only if an exception to Goal 14 is taken. This subsection shall not be construed to imply that creation of new lots or parcels two acres or larger always complies' with Goal 14. The question of whether the creation of such lots or parcels complies with Goal 14 depends upon compliance with all provisions, of this rule. (b) Each local government must specify a mulls €.err area for any new lot or parcel that is to be created hi a rural residential area. For the purposes of this rule, that minimum area shall be referred to as the minimum lot size. (c) If, on the effective' date of this rule,, a local government's land use regulations specify' a minimum lot size of two acres or more, the area of any new lot or parcel shalt equal or exceed that minimum lot size which is already in effect. (d) If, on the effective date of this land use regulations specify a two acres, the > area of any new equal or exceed two acres. rule, a local government's um lot size smaller than or parcel created shall fie) A local government may authorize a planned unit development (PUD), 'specify the siz of lots or parcels by averaging density across a parent parcel, or allow clustering of new dwellings hi a rural residential area only if all conditions set forth in paragraphs (7)(e)(A) through (7)(e)(H) are met: A. The number of new dwelling units to be clustered or developed as a PUD does not exceed 10. FINDINGS: Each of the ten prop in size, and the lots would be c osed residential lots in Tree Farm 2 would be at least two acres, ustered near the northern border of Tree Farm 2. As discussed above, Tree Farm 2 would be one of five contiguous cluster/PUDs comprising The Tree Farm, and establishing' a total of 50 dwellings on approximately 533 acres. The applicant's five burden of proof statements assert each subdivision ' can be approved as a ta€gid-alone development. The Hearings Officer disagrees. ''l find the five clusterlPUDs effectively would function as a single development because each clusterlPUD is dependent on, one or more of the other cluster/PUDs for roads and other infrastructure. For example, Tree Farm 2 lots will not have access to Skyliners Road without concurrent development of Tree Tree Farris 2, 247- 4 -000244 -CU, 2 7-14-000245-T ` Page 15 of 114 Fart €s 1 and 3, and the applicant's proposed utility plan shows city', ova Tree Farm 2 lots must be made through Tree Farms 3 through 5.., e sery e co€inectidn to The applicant appears to have chosen to develop The Tree Farrn through five separate cls€ster/PUDs in, order to maximize the number of dwellings on the property. Although this approach is somewhat unconventional, the Hearings Officer finds nothing in the county's <land' €€ e regulations that prohibits it. Each individual Tree Farm development is a legal lot of record,8 and the applicant is entitled to develop each legal lot of record consistent with applicable zoning ordinance(s) and the subdivision/partition ordinance 1 am not aware of any code provision that requires the applicant to consolidate its five legal lots as a prerequisite to cluster/PUD' development. Neither have I'' found any prohibition against developing a duster/PUD where, as here, roads and other infrastructure necessary to serve the new subdivision lots are dependent upon extension of and connection to such facilities on contiguous or nearby land. In such cases, subdivision approval may be conditioned on extension of and connection tca existing roads and other infrastructure before final plat approval. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer find maximum number of dwelling units for a cluster/PUD und Tre er thi e Farm 2 d s administrat The number of new lots or not exceed 10. oes not exceed he se rule. parcels to be created does FINDING : The applicant proposes ten new residential lots in Tree Farm 2. Staff questioned whether the applicant's proposed open space tract must be counted as a lot for purposes of the rnalr€u€r€;.; density calculation. Staff discussed this question with the applicant and with Jon Jinnings, Community Services Specialist with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Based on those conversations, staff concluded the ten -lot maximum applies only to new residential ots and not to the proposed open space tract. In an October 27, 2014 electronic mail message, the applicant's attorney Jeffrey Condit agreed with staff's interpretation, offering the following analysis: "There are two rules of statutory. construction that come into play: First, a statute is construed based upon text and context (i.e. its relationship to other provisions in the ordinance). Second, if possible, a statute should be cot tied to avoid a conflict rather than create one. The rule (subsection 7(e)) allows up to to t dwellings on up to ten new lots, so that assumes that there can be up to ten buildable lots, The rule (subsection 7(h)) also contemplates that there could' be an 'open space lot, parcel, or tract.' If the open space tract is as counted as a lot for the purposes of subsection 7(e)(E3), then aro applicant' will never be able to construct more than 9 dwellings, >.which will violate the express text of the rule. It will be possible, of course, t a include the common area within the boundary of one of the ten,;, parcels, and !trait the development on the open space portion via covenant, but what is the policy basis for allowing that and not allowing the open space to be located on a separate unit', of land as long as it can't be developed? (Particularly considering that the latter arguably provides better long -tern! protection 10 the open space parcel,) I think the better reading, which doesn't. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to demonstrate to the Planning Division that all conditions of approval for the lot line adjustments creating the proposed configurations for Tree Farms 1 through 5 have been met before final plat approv=al for any of the Tree Farm developments. =arm 2, 247.14 -000244 -CU, 247.14 -000245 -TP Page 6of114> create a conflict ora distinction without>'a difference, is that the ten parcel limit in Subsection 7(e) (B), when read in context with the 7(e) (A) dwelling unit limit, was intended as a limit of up to ten buildable parcels, and that subsection {(h) allows an additional unbuildable 'lot, parcel or tract' restricted to open space as long as the requirements in that section are met. This is the only interpretation that reconciles potential conflicts and makes overall sense when read in context. f think similar reasoning applies to the County Code interpretation. The issue arose in the context of Tree Farm #1, which is proposed for a 105 acre property. Under the existing UAP -1O zoning, the property could be divided into ten lots' each with a house on it. The Tree Farm's proposal under the county PUD statute' is to cluster this development on ten two -acre lots and preserve the remainder of the property as open space in a separate tract. * * * First, the express purpose of the PUD is to allow exceptions from the standard requirements of the zone in order to `accrue benefits to the County and the general public in terms of need, convenience, service and appearance.' DCC 19,104.070. The preservation of the vast majority of the property in an open space tract is the chief public benefit''! justifies the exception to the standard. Second, DCC 19.104.070 provides that `aJ' planned unit development shall not be approved in any R zone if the housing density of the proposed development will result in an intensity of land use greater than permitted by the Comprehensive Plan.' As the underscored language indicates, the PUD ordinance is not concerned about number of parcels, but about overall housing density. Under the current zoning, no more than ten dwelling units can be sited on the 105 -acre property. Under the PUD as proposed in Tree Farm 1, no more than ten dwelling units can be sited on the 105 -acre property. The fact that the open space is being preserved in a separate tract does not affect compliance with the requirements of the P(JD Code (and is a very common practice in planned developments).„ The Hearings Officer concur with Mr. Condit's analysis, l find the proposed open space tract in Tree Farm 2 is not counted in the ten -lot maximum,and therefore the applicant" s proposal for ten residential lots does not exceed that maximum, F ND NG S: All resit entia C None of the new lots or parcels wil two acres, lots in Tree Farm 1 wi a be smaller than I be two acres in size, satisfying this>criterio€a. The development is not to be served by a new community sewer system€. The development is not to be served by any new, extension of a sewer system from within an urban growth boundary or from within an unincorporated community. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to serve the ten residential lots in Tree Far € € 2 with individual onsite septic systems, therefore satisfying these criteria. The overall density of the development will ;.not exceed one dwelling for each unit of acreage specified in the Tree Parry; 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU 247414 -000245• -TP Page 17 of 114 local €governr e effective date of this rule as t the area. rat's land use regulations on the he minimum lot size for FIND INGS: The RR -10 and UAR 10 Zones in which Tree Farm 2 is located establisha general density of one lot per ten acres through Sections 1 .60.0 and `19.12.50, respectively. Both zones permit higher density for cluster/PUDs through Sections 18.60.60 and 19,104.040, respectively. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the 10 -lot maximum density in the administrative rule applies to residential''''lots and does not include open space tracts. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal complies with this requirement. G. Any group or cluster of two or more dwelling r,anit ' will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on nearby lads devoted to farm or forest use and will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices there. DINGS arr „i se. The record indicates there are no nearby lands devoted to farm use and no farm practices occurring on nearby lands. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farm practices on nearby lands devoted to farm use. ,Forest a R quired'I Analysis. The Hearings Officer finds this paragraph requires me to determine: (1) whether nearby forest -zoned land is "devoted to forest use;" (2) If so, what is the nature of that forest use; and (3) whether that forest use conflicts, or has the potential to conflict, with residential uses in the proposed ciusteriPUD to the degree that the residential' uses will significantly affect, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on the nearby forest -zoned lands,'' Study ,+area. The record indicates, public orest and in the DNF is located southwest across Skyliners»Road. In addition, private forest and is located west and northwest of Shevlin Park. The DNF forest lands are managed by the USES and extend west to the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The private forest lands west and northwest of Shevlin Park were once,, part of the "Bull Springs Bock" of public forest land conveyed by the USFS to private owners. The largest of these private forest and holdings was owned and managed by Cascade Timberlands, and according to Assessor's data consists' of 17 tax lots totaling approximately ' 33,080 acres.'° 9 Section 18.04.030 defines "forest ands" and "Barest uses" as folios, "Forest ands" means lands which are suitable for commercial forest rases including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. "Forest uses" incl ude production of trees and the processing of forest prod space; buffers from noise and visual separatism of conflicting uses; and wildlife and fisheries habitat; soil protection from wind and clean air and water; outdoor recreational activity and related'' wilderness values compatible with these rases; and grazing for lives Tree Far , 247-14-000244- U, 247-14-0t TP rs pport ck. ucts; open ion head prot lalntenance of services and Page 18 of 114 Assessor's data indicate there are several smaller private forest -zoned parcels northwest of Shevlin Park, some of which have dwellings�'� The Hearings Officer finds l r .est establish a "study area" for the analysis required by this rule. I` agree with the argument presented by Central Oregon LandWatch (LandWatch), that because impacts from certain forest practices, such as smoke from prescribed barns, can extend beyond adjacent properties, the appropriate study area should include both DNF lands and private forest lands west and northwest of Shevlin Park. However, the administrative rule requires an analysis of impacts on "nearby" lands devoted to forest useThe ordinary definitions of "nearby" and "near" are: "close at hand;" "at a short distance in space or time; close in distance or time; close in relationship." Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition. In light of these definitions, I find the appropriate study area should include public and private forest - zoned parcels located in whole or in part within one mile of the western boundary of The Tree Farm.12 The record indicates that because of the large size of these parcels, this study area includes thousands of forested acres in public and private ownership. Accepted Forest Prac tices on Nearby Lands Devo ted to Forest User 1. Deschutes National Forest. The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 notes the portion of the DNF southwest of The Tree Farm includes the heavily -used "Phil's Trail" mountain biking trail network. The burden of proof goes on to state: "The 1990 Deschutes National ''Forest' plan (as ar ended) ide€,fi,es the lands adjacent to The Tree Farm property as Management'' Area 9 — Scenic Views. The goal of this management area is to provide visitors with, scenic vistas representing the natural character of central Oregon. Specifically, landscapes' which are visible from selected travel routes and places which are frequently visited will be managed to maintain or enhance their appearance. The proposed trail network will provide a variety of scenic vistas for visitors. The proposed homesites in The Tree Farm project overall and in Tree Farm 1 specifically are all located well away from the travel corridor of Skyfiners Road within the Deschutes National Forest, and thus will have no negative visual impact on the forest use identified in the Forest Plan. In addition, ossa of the PUD to cluster development allows hor resites to be sited at a further distance from the houndar.* than would development of ten --acre lots. The open space tract r nu'st remain in that state and will be subject to deed restrictions." The Hearings Officer finds that under the broad definition of "forest use in Title 18, the DNF is land "devoted to forest use." l find the uses occurring on and planned for that land — recreational, and preservation of open space and scenic vistas — are of relatively low intensity compared with timber harvesting. I' also find the nature of these existing and planned uses for this portion of the DNF reflects the land=s proximity to the Bend urban area and its function as a ° The Hearings Officer is aware that after the close of the record Cascade Timberlands sold Deschutes County holdings. 1 will continue to refer to these lands as Cascade Timberlands property. The Hearings Officer finds County Assessor concerning real This study conditional'' use a practices in ti y take offic p lad ;y in a is equivalent to the pproval»requiring a simile surrounding area ial notice of data collected and maintained by the De Des fes County ch u ounty's one -rile -radius study nalysis of the impact from sreh arm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 4 -000245 -TP butes non-farm dwelling dwelling on aerepted farm Page 1 g of 114 gateway to millions of acres of public recreational land west of Bend. Nevertheless, in his November 21, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, County Forester Ed Keith stated: :i would note that the Forest Service does have an approved project called `West' Bend' that will be active for the coming several years on lands immediately west of the property, Planner "'' activities in Jude commercial and non-commercial thinning, brush mowing, pile', and dcast burning." In his December 10, 2014 comments in support of the applicant's proposal attached to Jeffrey Condit's December 11, 2014 letter, Gary Marshall, former City of Bend Fire l'Iarshal, stated the USFS has begun implementing the 'West Bend Plan" which he describes as involving the restoration of 26,000 acres of the DNF adjacent to The Tree Farm for the dual purposes of improving wildlife habitat and reducing wildfire risk. Mr, Marshall stated the methods utilized in the ' est, Bend ,Plan" are essentially the same as those previously employed, and proposed to be continued, on The Tree Farm property. Based on this information, the Hearings Officer finds it appropriate to assume these nearby DNF lands also will be managed for forest health and fire prevention through periodic thinning by, logging and controlled burns. Impacts from these higher -intensity forest practices would include noise from tree cutting, noise and drifting dust from, log truck traffic on unpaved roads, and drifting of chemicals and smoke from prescribed burns and pile/slash burg s, On behalf' of LandWatch, Pau Dewey claims the presence of homes in The Tree Fara will cause the DNF to abandon forest practices such as "aggressive fuel treatment and fire suppression techniques." He cites a research paper on wildfire risks from Headwaters Economics, included in the record as Exhibit t1F" to Mr. Dewey's November 19, 2014 submission, This paper is based on case studies of eight communities, none of which includes Bend or Central Oregon. Although these studies provide useful general'' information, the Hearings Officer finds they are not a substitute for site-specific analysis of the impact of the ten proposed dwellings in Tree Farm 2on DNF lands within the study area. Moreover, the evidence in this record does not support Mr, Dewey's assertion that the DNF is undertaking, or planning to undertake, "aggressive fuel treatment and fire suppression techniques." Mr. Dewey acknowledges that since the management plan for the DNF lands closest to The Tree Farm includes preservation of scenery, any logging will be done "in a more visually -sensitive way * * * than in the General Forest;" which the record indicates is located approximately five miles southwest of The Tree Farm,13 Finally, lir. Keith stated that in his opinion: rather than restricting management because of development, this project ["West Bend] is going on >>because of development and the recognition of risk that the current condition of these lands, pose to the greater Bend area, Existing development near the DNF includes both Shevlin.Park and two large rural residential developments - The Highlands at Broken Top and Tetherow. Based on Mr. Keith's comments, the Hearings Officer believes it is appropriate to assume the management plans for the nearby DNF lands already have been influenced to a significant degree by the presence of these land uses, as well as nearby developments' within the Bend tUGB< ncludes:` as Exhibit "H" to Mr. Condit's December 1'l, 2014 Tette DNF west; and southwest of The Tree Farm,, and showing the more Forest' -- Le..., the area planned for tir produ Tree'arm 2. 247-14-000244-C U. 247 -14 -000245 -TP :s a color -coded map depicting the ant location of the DNF "General Page; 2 0 of .r 14 The record indicates that at its closest points, the portions of the DNF engaged in, and planned for, scenic preservation and recreation are located between 3.000 and 4.000 feet from Tree Farm 2 Lot 20, the most southwestern lot. The staff report suggests, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that because of the combination of the Intervening distance and the law -intensity uses on the nearest DNF lands, current and planned management practices on nearby DNF lands will result in few if any impacts on Tree Farm 2 residential uses. I find the lack of comment on The Tree Farm from the USFS strongly suggests it has no concerns about the impact of dwellings in Tree Farm 2 on its management practices. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 and its residential uses will' not force a significant' change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices, on DNF lands in the study area, Private Forest Land, The private forestlands west and northwest of Shevlin Park are part of the "Bull Springs Block" that was once part of the DNF. These lands were transferred to Crown Pacific, and following its bankruptcy were conveyed to other owners including Cascade Timberlands. They form much of the forest land visible to the west of Bend. The record indicates' that before Cascade Timberlands sold Its Deschutes County holdings, the company and other stakeholders had discussed long-term planning for this !and — referred to as "Skyline wrest" -T to include a combination of preservation of open space and scenic views, creation, and sustainable timber production, not, unlike the plan for nearby DNF lands. re The record does not indicate what types of uses currently are occurring on the Cascade Timberlands property or on, the smaller' private forest -zoned parcels orthwest of The Tree Farm. In the Hearings>;Officer's previous decision in Taylor (MP -05-31 CU -05-106, SMA -05-41 MA -06-1,, MA -06-8), involving an application for a large -tract dwelling on a forest -zoned parcel northwest, of The Tree Farm, I made the following findings concerning accepted forest practices on the Cascade Timberlands property. "LandWatch argues that although current forest practices in the study a low intensity, the Hearings Officer should include within the `accepted fo est' practices' in the study area much more intensive practices that could occur in the future if reforestation occurs on a large scale and mature'' trees are harvested in greater numbers. Land€ atch's predecessor Sisters Forest Planning Cot rrnittee (SFPC) made the same aF ur hent ire Hogensen, in that decision, l made the following pertinent findings: 'The Hearings Officer concurs with the appellant that it s reasonable to assume the term, 'accepted' forest practices includes not only those practices currently taking place, hut those that could occur in the future Nevertheless. t find it is not reasonable to speculate from this record that all land in the study area will be reforested and harvested to the most intense degree possible —, particularly where, as here, the record indicates Crown Pacific [the predecessor of Cascade Timberlands] has been selling tracts of its forest -zoned land for residential development, purposes rather IN'in ft r tin)h r management nt hilt harvest Therefore, 1 Pr'3 #' appropriate to evaluate the impacts of the proposed dwelling on thy: forest practices that are most prevalent currently and in the recent past <— i,e., selective harvesting of trees, loco hauling, slash and prescribed burning, and some chemical spraying.' Tree Fa rre€ 2. 247 -14 -000244 -CU 247-14-0 0€ 245 -TP' Page 21 of 114 These findings were challenged by SFPC and upheld on, appeal. Sisters Forest' Planning Committee v. Deschutes County The Hearings Officer adheres to these findings here." On appeal of the Hearings Officer "s decision in Taylor (Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County 53 Or LUBA 290 (2007), LUBA found that the scope and intensity of accepted forest practices is a "fact -specific inquiry," and upheld my findings, There is no evidence in this record that Cascade Timberlands continued its predecessor's practice of selling individual forest -zoned parcels for residential use, However, it appears from this record that in the ten years since my Taylor decision the general nature of accepted forest practices on the Cascade Timberlands property has not changed. Therefore, l find it is appropriate to assume accepted forest practices on these lands' would include selective harvesting of trees, log hauling, slash and 'prescribed burning, and some chemical spraying. I' have found potential impacts from such uses include noise from logging, noise and drifting dust from operating log trucks on unpaved roads, drifting of chemicals, and drifting of smoke' from prescribed burns and pile/slash burns. The tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows its most western lot, Lot 20, would be located more than 6,500 feet from the nearest point on the, Cascade Timberlands land and farther from the nearest smaller private forest -zoned parcels to the northwest. The intervening land includes large open space tracts in the western portion of The Tree Farm as well as 'Shevlin Park. As with the nearby DNF lands, the Hearings Officer finds it is likely the presence of Shevlin Park has influenced, and will continue to influence, the intensity of forest practices on the nearby private forest lands. l find impacts, if any, on Tree Farm 2 from forest practices on the nearby private forest lands would be significantly attenuated by distance and intervening open space., For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farre 2 will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on the nearby private forest lands. Therefore, l find the applicant's proposal satisfies this rule requirement. For any open space or common area provided as a part of the cluster or planned unit development under this subsection, the owner shall submit proof of nonrevocable deed restrictions recorded in the deed records. The deed restrictions shall preclude all future rights to construct a dwelling on the lot, parcel, or tract designated as open space or common area for as, long as the lot, parcel, or tract remains outside an urban growth boundary..,, FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to make the Tree Farm 2 open space tract subject to deed restrictions as depicted in Exhibit "L" to its burden of proof. However, the sample deed restrictions included in this exhibit do not state they would permanently prohibit development of the open space tracts. Rather, they use language similar to that set forth above in Paragraph (H) — i.e., development of the open space tract would be prohibited for so long as the property is outside the Bend UGB. As discussed in findings throughout this decision, the applicant has stated a €ntefn s'that The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 never w€ll be included in the Bend Lt B, and has proposed that the development create a "permanent" transition area between urban uses to the east and Shevlin Park and forest land to the west. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a conditia to record nonrevocable deed restrictions for the Tree Fars 2 open space tract s Tree Farr;. 2, 247-14-0002 44 -GU, 247-14-0 €€ cf approval'' tat ng that no 0245_TF Page 22 of 114 portion of the open space tract will be used for a dwelling or any other € se in perpetuity. In addition, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval, and prior to submitting for final approval any plat for Tree Farm development, to provide to the Planning Division for county review and approval a copy, of the required deed restrictions, as well as copies of the regarded deed restrictions after recording. l find that with imposition of these conditions of approval the applicant's intent will be accomplished and the open space tract in Tree Farm, 2 will be preserved as open space as required by this paragraph. (f) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, a local government shall not allow more than one permanent single- family dwelling to be placed on a lot or parcel In a rural residential area.Where a medical hrdship creates a need for a second household to reside temporarily on a lot or parcel where one dv+relling already exists, a local government may authorize, the temporary placement of a manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle. FINDINGS: The applicant pro satisfying this criterion. 2. ID ision 11 poses one Publ Ingle -family dv welling per residential c Facilities Plann rlcg, OAR 660-011-0065, Water Service t Rural Lands 1) As used;,i (a n this ru le ,> unless the context requires o lot, therefore herwise: "Establishment" means the creation of a ne iv varst r system and all associated physical`> components, including systems provided by public or private entities°, bt "Extension of a water systerrr"; me ne the extension of a ,pipe, conduit, pipeline, main, or other physical component from or to an existing water system in order to provide service to use that was not served by the system on the applicable date of this rule, regardless of whether the use is inside the service boundaries of the public or private service provider; (c) "Water system" shall have the same meaning as provided in Goal 11, and includes all pipe, conduit, pipeline, mains, or other physical components of such a system, (2) Consistent with Goal 11>, local land use regulations applicable to lands that are >.outside urban growth boundaries and 99)1192111PrAtqci.c.911111114114Y.A1TIPAgliqq__§.4.0_110 Mow an increase se in a base density in a wsidentisl zea c due to the availability of service from a water system; (b) Allow a trrgtaer density for residential devalopment served by a water system than will be authorized without such servicer 0 Tree Parra 2, 247.14.000244 -CU, 247-14-000245 TP Pae 23 of 114 (c) Mow an increase in the allowable density of residential developrrrent due to the presence, establishment, or extension of a water system. (3) Applicable provisions of this rule, rather than conflicting provisions of local acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall immediately apply to local land use decisions filed subsequent to the effective date of this rue. (Emphasis added,) FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to provide do tic water to the Tree Farm 2 lots through one of three options: (1) extension of City of Bend water service, (2) securing water service from Avion Water Company; or (3) pumping water from one or more wells on The Tree Farm or adjacent property. The Hearings Officer finds both Bend's and Avion's Mater systems constitute "water systems" for purposes of this rule. The base density of the UAR-10 Zone Mill allow the creation of up, to ten new residential lots in Tree Farm 2, as proposed by the applicant. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal Mill not allow an increase in the UAR-10 base density, allow higher residential density than Mouid be authorized without water service, or allow an increase in allowable density due to the presence or extension of a water system. Therefore, 1 find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies, imposition of the conditions of approval described above will satisfy, ail applicable provis the administrative rules in Divisions'4 and 11 of OAR Chapter 660. C. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes C RR -10 ZONE STANDARDS 1 oun or with ions of ty Zo€r in Ordinance Chapter 18< 0, Rural Residential Zone — RR 10 Section 18.60.030„ Conditional Uses Permitted The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18,12 Cu star° d eel pm ent. 8. FINDIN S: The Tree Farm 2 tentative plan shows only the most southwestern, part of the proposed open space tract would be located within the RR -10 Zone. The Hearings Officer has found the proposed cluster/PUD is a use permitted conditionally in both the RR -10 and UAR-10 Zones under Sections 18,60.030(E) and (F) and 19.12.030(N), respe tively. The staff report states the RR -10 Zwe provisions applicable to``res€dentiaal lots are not applicable to Tree Farris 2 because its residential' lots are not located in the RR -10 Zone. However, as discussed above, have found that to the, extent feasible, l will apply the provisions of both the RR -10 and UAR-10 Zones to Tree Farms 1 through 4 in their entirety rather than segmenting my review based on the zs ne boundaries. Therefore,'''I find the provisions of the RR -10 Zone are applicable to Tree Tran Fared 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247.14-0C 4 TP Page 24of11 Farm 2 as a whole_ The propose compliance v> ith the provisi discussed in findings below under that chapter. b, Section 1&60M$0, Dimensiona n an RR -10 Zone, th fol load Standard ns of C pte g dimensional standards s r X28 hail ap ply: Minimum lot size shall be 10 acres, except planned and, cluster developments shall be allowed an equivalent density of one unit per 7.5 acres. Planned and cluster developments within one mile of an acknowledged urban growth boundary shall',. be allowed'' a five acre minimum lot size or equivalent density. For parcels separated by new arterial rights of way, an exemption shall be granted pursuant to DCC 18.120,020, FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal satisfies the maximum density under OAR 660-004-0040. which allows lots as s€nail as two acres. The applicant proposes ten 2 -acre residential lots and'' one 82.8 -acre open space tract for Tree Farm 2. As discussed in the findings below under the WA Zone, Section 1888050 requires that all residential lots within the WA Zone be clustered and, a minimum > of 80 -percent open space be preserved. The ''burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 states the applicant chose to plat all residential' lots in The Tree Farm, — including all bts in Tree Farms 1, 2, and 3, and Lots 31-36 and 38 in Tree Farm 4 in the l AR -10 Zone -- at two acres in size, and to cluster the residential lots, in order to max maize open space and to create a consistent development pattern throughout The Tree Farm In spite of its split zoning. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer find applicable criteria in the RR -10 Zone WA ZONE STANDARDS hapter 18.88, Wi; Section dlife Area Com 18.88 010 s the pplicant`s proposal satisfies binng Zone — A Purpose The purpose of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is to conserve important wildlife areas In Deschutes County; to protect an important environmental, socia and economic element" of the area; and to permit development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource. Section 18.88.02 0, Ap plication of Provisions The provisions. of DCC 18.88 shall'' apply to Anil areas identified ire the Com rehensive Plan ae a winter dyer ren a siigruficant elk' habitat, antelope range or, deer migration corridor. Unincorporated communitles are exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.88. (Empha sis added all Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU. 24{• 14 -000245 -TP Page 25 of 114 FINDINGS: The tentative plan for The Tree Farm shows the western 333 acres of the entire development, and the western 68.2 acres of Tree Farm 2, are within the WA Zone associated with Tu€r lelc deer winter range. The Hearings Officer has found that because the WA Zone is an overlay zone protecting a specific geographically -defined and napped resource, I will apply the WA Zone only to those portions of Tree Farms 1 through 4 located within the WA Zone Therefore, I find the WA Zone provisions apply only to the portion of Tree Farm 2 located in the WA Zone, consisting of open space and a segment of Tree Farm € Drive. Section 18,88.140, Uses Permitted Conditionally' A. Except as provided in, DCC 18.88.040(B), in a zone with which, the WA Zone is combined, the conditional uses permitted shall be those permitted conditionally by the underlying zone subject to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.128 and other applicable sections of this titter FINDINGS: Cluster evelopments are permitted conditionally in the RR -10 Zone and therefore they are allowed conditionally in the WA Zone. Compliance with the specific duster development standards in Chapter 18.128 is addressed in the findings below; d c. Section 18,88.050, Dimensional Standard In a WA Zone, the followin g dime lion s all stand and s shall apply: A. In the Tumalo, I Iletolius, North Pauline and Grizzly deer winter ranges designated in the Comprehensive 'plan Resource Element, the minin m ot size for new parcels shall be 40. acres except as provided in DCC 18.88.050(D). FINDINGS: Section 18.04.030 defines "parcel" as "a r.€nit of land created by a partitioning of and." The applicant does not propose the creation of any new parcels, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable. In any case, Tree Farm 2 would be 104.2 acres in size, and the portion of Tree Farm 2 in the WA Zone would be 68.2 acres, exceeding the minimum lot size for new parcels, Residential land divisions, including partitions, in deer winter range where the underlying zone is RR -10 or IUA-1O, shall not be permitted except as a planned development or cluster development conforming to the following standards: FINDINGS: The applicant proposes a residential and division consisting of a ten -int cluster/PUD on property zoned RR -10 and UAR-10, therefore satisfying this criterion. 14 As noted above, Tree Farm Tree Farrrr;; 2, 247-14- 1 47-14r- 1 , 3, and The minimum a development shall 4 rea for a planned or cluster be at least 40 acres. have spit zoning between t.EAR-1 6 and FSR - A. 244-4U, 247-14-00024 TP Page 26 of 114 FINDINGS. Accordin mini g to the submitted tentative plan, Tree Farrn 2 would consist of 104.2, 68,2 acres of which wouldbe coated within the WA Zone, therefore satisfying' this u€ area standa€rd.15 2. The planned or cluster development shall retain a minimum of 80 percent open space and conformwith the provisions of DCC 18.128 200 or 210. FINDINGS: According to the submitted tentative plan, Tree Farm 2 would have 20 acres of residential bats (ten 2 -acre lots), 82.8 acres of open space, and 1.4 acres of right-of-way The tentative plan shows 67.7 acres of the open space and 0.5 acres of the right-of-way would be located within the WA Zone. Based on this acreage, 79 percent of the entire Tree Farre 2, and approximately 99 percent of the VVA-zoned portion of Tree Farm 2, \mould be open space. The applicant's burden of proof states the 80 -percent open space should be calculated including only the `A -zoned land, based on the following analysis: "Overall, the 5 separate PUD/Cluster Developrerit proposal within The Tree Farm will result in fifty 2 -acre homesites totaling 100.1 acres on 533.5 cornbined acres. Open space will comprise 422.8 total acres, or 79% of the total project (the remaining 10.6 acres are within the new street rights of way.). While this is just under 80% open space for the entire project, the applicant notes that only, 393 acres of requirement. the remainder being,zoned fR--10`evhich has no such specik open space requirement. Of the 393 acres in the RF?-19(WA), 362.7 acres (92%) will be preserved as permanent open space. This is accomplished'' by concentrating the developed homesites in the UAR-1O portion of the property in order to maximize the arrrount of open space to be preserved in the deer winter range." The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant that land outside the WA Zone is not the open space calculation, and therefore I find Tree Farm 2 satisfies the minimum open space requirement in the WA Zone. 3. included in 80 percent Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.128.200 or 210, or DCC 18 ), the total number of residences in a cluster development may not exceed the density permitted in the underlying zone. FINDINGS: ; The general density in the RR -10 Zone is one dwelling per ten acres. The applicant proposes that the 104.2 -acre Tree Farm 2 be developed with ten residential lots and one open space tract. The Hearings Officer has found the open space tract is not included in the residential density calculation, and therefore Tree Farm 2 satisfies this standard. d. Section 18.8 15 The Hearings Officer addressed a similar issue in my Taylor decision,, cited above. There, the applicant proposed creation of an 80 -acre parcel comprised of 40 acres zoned F-1 and 40 acres zoned Surface Mining (SM). Section 18.36.090 establishes an 80 -acre minimum lot size 'in the F-1 Zone." l held the quoted language meant the 80 -acre minimum lot size must be met entirely within the F-1 Zone. The language establishing the minimum lot size in the WA Zone is identical' to the language in F-1 Zone at issue in Taylor. 8 0 60, Siting St ndards, Tree Farm 2, 247; -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 27 of 114 FINDINGS: The Hearings and lot lines. Because all outside the WA Zone, l find Setbacks shall be those described m the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined. Officer finds this provision applies to >.setbacks 10 residential''' lots and dwellings in Tree Fa this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farm 2 between structures rm 2 \ %ould be located The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall''' be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 6, 1992 unless it can be found that: ` « Habitat values (Le., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; or, The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements for vehic alar access will force the dwelling to be located on irrigated ,land, in which case, the dwelling shall be located to provide the least possible impact on wildlife habitat considering browse, forage, cover, access to water and migration corridors, and minimizing length of new access roads and driveways; or, 3. The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the edge of a driveway that existed as of August 6, 1992. For purposes of DCC 18.88.060(B): A private road, easement for vehicular access or drivevvay will conclusively be regarded as having existed prior to August 5, 1992 if the applicant submits any of the following. A copy of an easement recorded County Clerk prior to August, 5, establishing a ight' of ingress and egr vehicular use- th the 1992 s for An aerial photograph with proof that it was, taken prior to August 5, 1992 on which the road, easement or driveway , allowing vehicular access is visible; A map published prior to August 5, 1992 or assessor's map from prior to August 5, 1992 shoring the road (but not shoring a mere trail or footpath) Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU 247 14 -000245 -TP Page 28 f 11 FIN Zon B An applicant may submit any other evidence thought to establish the existence of a private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway as of Augut 5, 1992 which evidence need not be regarded as conclusive. NGS: Because no residential lots or dwellings in Tree Farm 2 will e, the Hearings Officer finds these dwelling siting criteria are not applida be located) in the WA Section 18.88.£70, Fence Standards ble to Tree Farm 2 The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new fences constructed as a part of development of a property in conjunction with a conditiona use permit or site plan review. N ew fences in the Wild designed to permit wild and guidelines shall apply un which provides equivalent wild ife Area Combining Zone sha'l'l be life passage. The fallowing standards ess an alternative fence design life passage is approved by the County after consu Fish and Wildlife: station with t he Oregon Department of 1. The distance between the strand or board of the fence s ground and the bottom hal be at least 15 inches. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inc a bove ground levels Smooth wire and wooden fe wi 1 dlife are preferred discouraged. noes t Woven ha hes )leer passage of e fences are Exemptions: 1 < Fences encompassing less than 10,000 square feet which surround or are adjacent to residences or structures are exempt from the above fencing standards. 2' Corrals used for working ivestok, FINDINGS: The applicant does not propose any new fencing for Tree Farm 2, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable. However, to assure compliance with these standards, 1 find that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to install any fencing in the WA -zoned portion of Tree Farm 2 in accordance with these standards. As noted above, the applicant t propos - to remove most of the existing wise fencing on The 1 MO Fenn. For the foregoing reasons, the 'H standards in the WA Zone. CONDITIONAL earing s Officer fi USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Tree: Farm 2, 247-14-0 ds Tree Farm 2 sa tisfies all applicable 00244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -Tp Page 29 of 114 Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use Section 18.128.010, Operations A. A conditional use listed in DCC Table 18 shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this title, DCC Title 22, the Unifdrraa Development Procedures Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan. Section 18.128 015, General Standards GoverningGond itional Uses Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone In which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: FINDINGS: The applicant argues the general conditional use standards in this section do not apply to Tree Farm 2 because the proposal Includes individual''' single-family dwellings- The Hearings Officer disagrees. l find these criteria are applicable to Tree Farm 2 because the proposed conditional use is a cluster development, not an "individual single-family d'reiling."' Th su e site under consideration shat itable for the proposed use based be determined to be on the fol lowing factors - FINDINGS: : At the outset, staff ,questions what constitutes the 'site" forpurposes of the suitability analysis under this paragraph in light of the split zoning of Tree Farm 2. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found that in order to conduct a meaningful review of Tree Farm 2 as a whole, I will apply the standards in both Titles 18 and 19 -- with the exception of the WA Zone in Title 18 -- to the entire clusterrPUD. Therefore, l find the site for evaluation of the proposed c!uster/PUD is the entire Tree Farm 2. Site, desi gn and operating characteristi of e use; Site. Tree Farm 2 would be 104.2 acres in size. It is very irregular in shape, the result of the irregular shape of The Tree Farm and the configuration of its five legal lots of record. The topographical information on The Tree Farm tentative plans shows the configuration of Tree Farms 1 through 5 generally follows the contours of the property. and in particular' the central ridge that runs generally in a southwest -to -northeast direction, Tree Farm 2 is > approximately in the»,. middle of The Tree Fara. Tree Fara 2 extends from the northern border of The Tree Farm in a generally southwest direct ion to Skyliners Road. The topography of Tree Farm 2 varies from higher, relatively level ground' near its northern boundary to steeper slopes in the center of the site and within the open space tract. Vegetation consists of scattered pine and juniper trees in the .'astern portion of the site and mostly shrub steppe vegetation in the eastern portion, The site has frontage on Skyliners Road lt' is separated from the Bend IGB by a vacant parcel' owned by Miller Tree Farre 16 The applicant did not address these criteria in its burden of proof for Tree Farm 2, but in response to the staff report submitted a memorandum dated October 29, 2014, addressing the criteri Tree Fr rrn 2, 241-14-€ 00244 --CU, 247.14 -000245 -TP Page 30 f 114 Design and Operating Characteristics. The proposed ten residential lots in Tree Farm 2 world be clustered near the northern border of The Tree Farm on higher, relatively level ground. AH lots would have frontage on Ridgeline Drive. The northeast terminus of Ridgeline Drive would be a cul-de-sac on Ridgeline Court near the northeast corner of Tree Farm 1. Ridgeline Drive would extend southwest from Tree Farm 1 through Tree Farms 2 and 3 and would connect with Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farm 3,, the primary cluster/PUD road which intersects with Skyliners Road at the southern property boundary. The applicant proposes to develop Tree Farms 1, '2 and3 concurrently to provide access from Skyliners Road to the lots in those three clu ter/PUDs. The topographical information on the tentative plans shows the private roads will be constructed primarily on the central ridge, thus minimizing steep road cuts and grades, A gated temporary emergency access road would extend from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive in, Tree Farm, 1 south across the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive in the Bend UB. This secondary access would be in place > until the adjacent Miller Tree Farms property is, developed with paved streets to which Sage Steppe Drive could connect, Sage' Steppe Drive would be a dedicated pudic road with 60 feet of right-of-way and would be stubbed off at the northern boundary of Tree Farm 1 to, provide future road access to the adjacent Rio Lobo property. The applicant proposes that each dwelling would be constructed within a designated building envelope, would be served by an onsite septic system,; and would receive water from the City of Bend, Avion Water Company, or one or more groundwater wells. The majority of Tree Far€ € 1' (82.8 acres) would be set aside as permanent open space, The public would have access to this open space through a combination of a permanent trail easement on the primary trails within The Tree Farms and a license granted by The Tree Farm homeowners' association (HOA) for use of trails within the residential lot areas. The multi -use trail' system in Tree Farm 2 would' connect with trails in the rest of The Tree Farm and Shevlin Park and the DNF to the west and southwest. The Hearings Officer finds the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed ten -lot cluster/PUD because of the nature of the site and the design and operating characteristics of the proposed development. l find the property is large enough to accommodate the proposed residential lots, open space tract, and private and public roads. l find the clustering of dwellings near the northeast corner of Tree Farm 2 will preserve the maximum amount of open space and will allow the dwellings to be sited on some of the most level ground on the site. l find the design of the public and private roads in Tree Farm 2 has taken into account the site's topography so the roads can be constructed without steep slopes or road" cuts and tight curves. As discussed in tte findings immediately below, l have found soils, on the site are suitable for installation of on-site septic systems. 1 also have found the proposed dwellings' will have adequate access to Skyliners Road with concurrent development of Tree Farms' 1, 2 and 3. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the site of Tree Farm 2 proposed ten -lot cluster/PUD considering the site and the design and of the proposed development, is suitable for the operating characteristics Adequacy of trans ationaccess to the site; end FINDINGS: Access to Tree Farm, 2 will be from Skyliners Road via a system of public and private roads. The main access road, Tree Farm Drive, will connect with all other Tree Farre roads at an intersection in Tree Farm 3. The segment of Tree Farm Drive from Skyliners Road north to a point near this €ntersection would be improved with a 26 -foot -wide paved surface to Tree Farm>2, 247-14- 0244 -CU 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page: 31 of 114 accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle traffic. The remaining segment of, Tree Farm Drive and the other Tree Farm Roads would be improved with 20 feet of paved surface. The applicant proposes a gated temporary emergency access road from the southern end of Sage Steppe Drive, a dedicated public road, south, through the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive, a dedicated public street within the Bend UGB. This secondary access would be in place until the adjacent IVIiller''Tree 'Farm property is developed with paved streets to which Sage Steppe Drive could connect. Traffic Study. In support of The Tree Farm proposal, the appl€cant submitted a traffic impact analysis ("traffic study") prepared by Kitt&iso€-€ & Associates, dated 2014, and included in the record as Exhibit "H" to the burden of proof statement for Tree Farrn 2. The traffic study indicates the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual'gE€' Edition (ITE' Manual), predicts each single-family dwelling will generate 9.5 average daily vehicle trips (ADTs). Accordingly, the traffic study predicts the 50 single-family dwellings proposed for entire Tree Farm € would generate 476 ADTs, of which 50 would be during the p.m. peak, hour (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays), The traffic study analyzed the impact of this traffic on the proposed Skyliners Road/Tree Farrn Drive intersection, and found sight distance at this intersection would be adequate in both directions. The traffic study recommended the placement of a stop sign on Tree Farm Drive at Skyliners Road and maintenance of dear vision areas at this intersection, The traffic study also analyzed Tree '''Farm intersections on the west side of Bend: pacts on the fofowing five existing Skyliners Road and Crosby Drive; Skyliners Road and Skyline Ranch Road; Skyliners Road and Mt. Washington Drive; Mt. Washington Drive and Northwest Crossing, Drive;,; and Mt. Washington Drive and Simpson Avenue. The traffic study found these existing intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service, and that with the addition traffic generated by The Tree Farrn, and including traffic volume growth of three percent and additional traffic anticipated from development in progress (including the new Pacific Crest Middle School and a large church under construction, and continuing development of Northwest Crossing), these intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service in 2017 and 2022.''' In its comments on the applicant's proposal, the road department did not identify any concerns or recommend any improvements to Skyliners Road or other existing roads to handle traffic generated by The Tree Farre. In his August 29, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell stated he had reviewed the applicant's traffic study and agreed with its methodology and conclusions. Several opponents argued traffic from The Tree Farm would cause unacceptable levels of congestion on affected streets and intersections on the west side of Bend, and would cause serious deterioration to Skyliners Road. The Hearings Officer finds no merit to these arguments in Iight of the traffic study's conclusions and the lack of road improvement recommendations from the road department. Opponent Connie Peterson suggested the traffic study should have included in its analysis traffic generated from a future Oregon State University (OSU) Cascades campus near the Mt. Washington Drive/Simpson Avenue intersection. Tie Hearings, Officer is aware the city's Tree Farr? , 2, 247 -14 -000244• -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 32 of 114 approval of a ten -acre OSU Cascades campus is on appeal>to CUBA and the approval therefore is not final, For this reason, I find the OSU development and its potentia traffic impacts are too speculative to be included in The Tree Farm traffic study. Opponent Rio Lobo submitted a memorandum dated December 11, 2014 from its traffic engineer, Lancaster Engineering, suggesting the applicant's traffic study was deficient in failing to include projected traffic from urban -density development of the adjacent 376 -acre Rio Lobo property. Rio Lobo's engineer predicted up to 1,100 dwellings could be developed on the property, and they would generate over 9,000 ADTs and 948 p.m. peak hour trips. The Rio Lobo property is outside the Bend UGB, has no county land use approvals' for the type of ow -density residential development permitted in the UA. -18 Zone — i.e., up to 37 dwell'ings -- and has limited road access.'`'' Therefore, I>'find potential traffic impacts from urban -density development of the Rio Lobo property also are too speculative to be included in the traffic analysis for The Tree Farm. Emergency Access The applicant proposes a gated temporary emergency access road from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive south through the adjacent Miller' Tree Farr property to Crosby Drive, a public street in the Bend UGB. Sage Steppe Drive would be a public road within a dedicated 60 -foot right -of- {ay and improved with a 20 -foot -wide paved surface, The emergency access road would be gated at both ends, and constructed with an all-weather surface meeting the fire department's standards for emergency vehicles. In his November 20, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, County Engineer George ''Kolb stated the emergency access road must have a 24 -foot -wide surface, and on that date the appl€cant submitted a revised tentative plan'' for Tree Farm 1 showing the emergency access road would be 24 feet wide, Crosby Drive provides access to the three nearby public schools — Summit High School, Miller Elementary School, and the new Pacific Crest middle school under construction. The tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 shows the proposed route of this emergency access road across the adjacent property, and the topographical information on the tentative plan indicates that for the most part the route would be on level or slightly sloping ground. The exception is a small area just north of Skyliners Road where there is a steep ridge. However, the proposed road alignment > appears to skirt the steepest part of that ridge. in an October 31, 2014 electronic mail message, the applicant stated the emergency access road will be constructed with grades not exceeding 8.5 percent, less than the 12 -percent maximum slope permitted for emergency vehicle access, In his November 20, 2014 comments, George Kolb stated the, proposed emergency access would require a county gate permit. At the public hearing, the Hearings Officer questioned how the locked access gates would operate and whether residents and guests would be able to open the gates. Gary Marshall stated such gates generally are designed to be operated by the fire department with 'Knox" locks. but that additional options are available for "residential access," including special keys, key codes and automatic gates. I find the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install one or more of these 'residential access" measures on the Tree Farm side of the gate at the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive At the public hearing, the Hearings Officer also questioned whether the proximity of the three schools. would cause Crosby Dive to become; so congested during a'large-scale emergency evacuation, such as for a wildfire, that Tree Farm residents would not be able to use the 1/ n his December 19,.>.2014 comments on... the applicant's proposal, Peter Russell correctly noted that without any land use approvals or current applications for development of the Rio Lobo property, 'the potential trip generation from the Rio Lobo property is zero.,, Tree Farm;.;. 2, 247• -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -€000245 -TP' Page 33 of 114 emergency road for egress. In his January 6, 2015 submission, Mr. Dewey stated the applicant'' proposed secondary emergency access is "fundamentally inadequate' for evacuations because it must be assumed all three schools and all Tree Farm residents will be evacuated at the same time. Mr.Marshall responded to these concerns in a letter dated December 10, 2014. included in the record as Exhibit "B" to Mr. Condit's December 11, 2014 letter. Mr, Marshall stated that in his opinion such congestion would not occur because it is highly unlikely every person in the, three schools and every resident in The Tree Farm would' evacuate at the same time and by the same roads, The Hearings Officer agrees with Mr, Marshall'sassessment. The Tree Farm would have two points of egress — Tree Farm Drive and the secondary emergency road -- and the record indicates the schools have several points of access. I find the existence of multiple points of egress for The Tree Farm and for the schools would serve to reduce congestion in the event al E three schools and The Tree Farm were evacuated simultaneously. Moreover, E find that in light of Mr. Marshall's extensive experience, including dealing with wildfires on the west side of Bend, his opinion concerning likely evacuation scenarios is credible and reliable, In a November 4, 2014 letter, included in the record as Exhibit "P" to Paul Dewey's'November 1 g„, 2014 submission, LandWatch's fire expert Addison Johnson suggested the secondary emergency access road should be constructed to run in the opposite direction from the main PUD access road — i.e., to the northeast. However, as discussed elsewhere in this decision, the tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 shows there is steep terrain northeast of Tree Farm 1, and there are no existing public roads with which such a secondary access road could connect, Therefore, I find an emergency access road to the northeast likely would not be feasible. Skyline Ranch Road. The tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 shows "potential future Skyline Ranch Road right-of-way” running from Crosby, Drive north and northwest across the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property and the northeast corner of Tree Farm 1 east o the cul-de-sac bulb for Ridgeline Drive. In the Hearings Officer's decision in Tree Farre 1, I discussed concerns expressed by county' staff and Rio Lobo about the location of this right-of-way. I held the applicant will be required as a condition of approval for Tree Farm 1 to nclude a notation on the Tree Farm 1 final plat stating possible adjustments to the open space and right-of-way calculations if a segment of Skyline Ranch Road is dedicated in Tree Farm 1. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the condition of approval d Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed to t -lot clust the adequacy of transportation access to the site. FINDINGS: escribed above, the er1PUD considering The natural and physic& features, of the site, includ but not limited to, general to and natural resource values. pogra 1 ng, phy, natural hazards General Topography. The Tree Farm tentative pEans show, and the Hearings Officer's site visit observations confirmed, that the Tree Farm 2 site has varying topography. The dominant feature of Tree Farm 2 is the central ridge running from southwest to ermtheasrt. The appliirarn' burden of proof states, and my site visit observations confirmed, that the higher ground atop, this ndge is relatively level to rolling, with steeper slopes in the northwest where the terrain drops toward Tumalo Creek and on the southeast -facing slopes in the middle of the property. Topographical information for The Tree Farm indicates thecentral ridge in Tree Farms 4 and slopes down to the west at grades ranging from 10 to 20 percent and lots in Tree Faris 4 and Tree Farm 2. 247-14-OQ0244-CL.E, 247-14-O0O245_TP< Page 34 of 114 include sloping terrain. However, the topographical information on the Tree Farm 2 tentative plan shows slopes from the central ridge to the east in Tree Farm 2 are less steep and the residential lots have ''little if any slope. As discussed above, the public and private road segments in Tree Farm 2 would align with the natural topography rather than cutting across slopes. For these reasons, l find the site is suitable for Tree Farm 2 considering its general topography. Natural Hazards. The identified natural hazard affecting The Tree Farm is wildfire. There is no dispute The Tree Farm is in a s, ildfire hazard area, 8 It is located in the ` 'ildland Urban Interface" (WUI) — i.e., the transition area between human development and'''wildland, in this' case forest lands. The eastern half of The Tree Farm was in the path of the 1990 Awbrey Hall fire that burned approximately 3,500 acres from the north end of Shevlin Park southeast to a point hear Highway 97. The June, 2014 Two Bulls Fire ''burned several thousand acres of Cascade Timberlands property west and northwest of Shevlin Park. The Hearings Officer finds the nature of the wildfire hazard is two -fold: (a) residential uses in The Tree Farm could ignite a fire that spreads to adjacent land; and (b) wildfire ignited elsewhere in the WUI, such as in the DNF, could spread to residential uses in The Tree Farm, diverting fire -fighting resources to The Tree Farm. The applicant's burden of proof states the Awbrey HallFire removed much of the forest overstory in the eastern part of The Tree Farm including Tree Farm 2, resulting in that area having fewer trees and primarily shrub steppe vegetation. The applicant states that since the Awbrey Hall Fire, Miller Tree Farm has worked with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and others to reduce fire fuels on the entire Tree Farm property, including tree thinning and brush removal. I observed evidence of this thinning activity during my site visit. However, as noted in my site visit report, I observed that the forested part of The Tree Farm retains a relatively dense tree cover, ,visible in aerial photographs in the record.19 The photos show the interface between the denser forest and the more open shrub steppe runs roughly along the line between Sections 33 and 34 and the RR -10 and UAl -10 Zones. The denser forest also covers a small portion of UARw10 zoned property in Tree Farms 2 and 3 and the most southwestern portion of Tree Farm 1 The mostly shrub steppe vegetation in Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 continues north onto the Rio Lobo property and east onto the Miller Tree Farm property. LandWatch argues that no part of The Tree Farm property or Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PVDs considering the risk of wildfire. Paul Dewey describes The Tree Farm as "not a safe place to build"° and "an inappropriate place for people to live. He states further development in the WUI is not appropriate because "no development can be made `safe' in the face of catastrophic wildfires.' In support of his position, Mr. Dewey submitted into the record several letters from LandWatch's fire expert Addison Johnson, as well as dozens of pages of articles. studies, and research papers discussing the risks of wildfire in the WU. :ft The parties disagree as to the degree of that hazard. {`t iiia 1i,,nektey.' describes it a extreme.'' The applicant notes the Greater Bend Gepp (Community Wildfire Protection Pan) Boundary Map, included in the record in Exhibit "0' to Mr. €Dewey`s November 19, 2014 submission, categorizes The Tree Farm and surrounding land as "high risk" — the lowest category of risk -- whale other areas on the map are categorized as higher risk — i.e., "extreme" and high density extreme. f° E.g., the Tree Farm Master Pian; Exhibit"A" to the Tree Farm 2'>>burd es of proof. Tree Fara^>.2, 947-14-000244- t 247-14-00024 -TP Page 3h of 114 In response, Mr. Condit argues in his December 30, 2€ 14 letter that The Tree Farm;, properties are zoned for rural development and the applicable criteria have to be construed in that context," in his January 6, 2015 final argument, Mr. Condit stated: "While [the applicant's proposed wildfire plan] will obviously not elirr ina to all risk from wildfires, it does not, however, folio€ that all development should be prohibited. Deschutes County regulates develrrnents in areas subject to natural' hazards (including wildfires) pursuant to Statewide Land ;Use Planning Goal 7', which provides that Racal governments shall adopt comprehensive plans * * * to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards,' There is, no requirement that all risk be eliminated.3 3 indeed, such ris. be impossible to eliminate in the Bend area. The greater Bend area Com, r unity Wildfire Protection Plan Boundary, attached as the last page of Exhibit 0 to LandWatch's November 19, 2014, submittal shows that The Tree Farm properties, the territonj within the City of Bend, and most of the surrounding territory are rated 'high' for wildfire risk. And there are significant areas near the City rated `extreme' or `high density extreme' for wildfire risk. The lire hazard risk within the City and on most of the ing territories is thus the same or even higher than on The Tree Farm properties." Mr. Condit goes on to state. "By requesting and obtaining an exception to Goals 3 and 4 to designate The Tree Farm properties as Rural Residential or Urban Area Reserve in 1988, the County made the policy decision that these are developable lands. This decision was acknowledged to be in compliance with the State Land Use Planning Goals, including Goal 7. That doesn't mean The Tree Farm doesn't have to comply with the applicable criteria. See PGE/Gaines, cited in the Applicant's prior testimony. Mr. Dewey argues that, because the Applicant cannot guarantee absolute protection from wildfires, no development should be allowed. >.Such a reading would swallow the Code." The Hearings Officer agrees the county made a policy decision that the RR-10/1/VA zoned lands west of the Bend UGB are developable, Any change to the uses permitted in the RR -10 and UAR-10 Zones wes of Bend — e.g., eliminating dwellings due to fire risk -- would require legislative action by he county, such as a text amendment' to Titles 18 and 19, and cannot be acoomplihed through individual quasi-judicial land use decisions However, The Tree Farm proposal includes land divisions providing for multiple dwellings and therefore is subject to the subjective and discretionary standards in Title 17-- e.g., contributing to "orderly development" - and the equally subjective and discretionary conditional use and cluster/FUD standards in Titles 18 and 19. Section 18.128.010 (A), set forth above, makes clear the county may deny a conditional use 'application if it finds the proposal does not satisfy the applicable approval c'iteria In addition, Section 18.128.020 authorizes the county to impose conditions of approval in order to assure compliance with the approval criteria. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer inds nothing in Title 18, 19, or 22 that requires the county to impose conditions in order to make a proposed conditional use approvable. Accordingly,, I find the question before, me is not whether the residential development ' should be prohibited on The Tree Farm or Tree Farm 2 site. Rather, it is whether the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed''''cluster/BUD considering the wildfire hazard Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 2474"4--000245•-Tp Page 36 of 114 The unusual configuration of Tree Farm 2 restricts placement of dwellings to the higher ground near the northern property boundary where there are significant views, The applicant proposes to duster the dwellings on the high ground, and to address wildfire risk through its wildfire plan, included in the record as Exhibit 'X to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof. The Hearings Officer agrees with Mr Condit that in order to find compliance with this conditional use approval' criterion l>need not find the wildfire plan eliminates ail fire risk for these dwellings. Rather, I must determine whether the wildfire plan, in its design and implementation, will reduce that risk to a sufficient degree that the Tree Farm 2 site and configuration are suitable for the proposed 1g41ot' clusteriPUD considering the risk of wildfire, The applicant's wildfire plan consists of a two-page narrative to which of information concerning the "Firewise Communities Program" (Firewi Communities Program The narrative describes the wildfire plan's,goa further reduction of lad der fuels;, thinning of juniper and srnai' develop€ ent pond erose tree re attached nine ) and s as of a fire adaptive ecosystem to preserve old growth; maintenance of a healthy tree stand and reduction of the threat o damaged trees; and enhancement of the landscape with native grasses for a nat support wildlife. The wildfire plan id en tifies the folio g mea ns to acconn dish these g pals: pages the 'Fire Adapted beetle kill and a landscape an e d to 1. wildia€gid fuel treatments completed,' by the current property owner will continue to be maintained by the developer and future HOA through a requirement written into the community's governing documents and guidelines, and will "enhance open space; structure survivability, and firefighter safety;" 2, The Tree Farm will -comply with all applicable criteria in the Deschutes County code relative to community safety from fire; 3. The Tree Farm will become a nationally recognized Firewise/USA Community viewed as a model HOA -managed neighborhood that uses wildfire mitigation principles to manage combustible vegetation and incorporates structure fire resistant features and materials to reduce the threat and intensity of wildfire to personal property and the adjacent forest;, 4. The Tree Farm will>incorporate into its governing documents and architectural and landscape guidelines the requirement 1p usp;;f€re.,Ef r € ,E t bujjdifIgn,eterials and land,so„RtUrfgItimq0. to reduce the threat of wildfire within the boundaries of the neighborhood and to create a fuel` break to slow or stop an approaching wildfire to, adjacent properties; 5. The Tree Fara developer and as a Firewise/USA Community;, HOA will make an annual Tree Far 2, 247-14-000244-CLt, 247 -14 -000245 -TP ornmf t'kt to maintain recogiton, Pa 3 of 114 6. residents and visitors will be familiarwith the county's ytVildfire Fire Evacuation Plan, in addition to The Tree Farmvac oust Pja ; and 7. The Tree Fare's governing documents will addra a,so€ rtes of human ca L€ ed ignitions prohibit burning of debris and the use of fireworks. (Emphasis added.) nd In his written public hearing testimony, Gary Marshall' stated the applicant proposes to use the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards in conjunction with regulations from the Oregon Fire Code and the Oregon State Residential Code "hich will greatly reduce the risk of home ignition from wildfire." Attached to Mr. Marshall's testimony are several lengthy'' NFPA and Firewise documents, including the 4 -page 2008 edition of the NFPA's "Standards for Reducing, Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire," However, Mn Marshall's testimony does, not indicate which of the Firewise or NFPA standards would apply to The Tree Farm, or when, how, where, or by whom they would be implemented And indicated in the above -underlined language, most of the wildfire plan's proposed implementation measures are general and aspirational. LandWatch questions the effectiveness of the applicant's wildfire plan for two principle reasons, each of which is addressed in the findings below. 1. Reliance on Firewise and NFPA Standards. In his November 21, 21€ 4 comments on the applicant's proposal, Ed Keith noted that to obtain Firewise recognition, The Tree Farm would need to obtain a wildfire risk assessment from ODF or the Bend Fire Department, form a board or committee to identify priorities, and create and implement an action plan. Mr. Keith stated tha "since communities are dynamic and vegetation grows back," Firewise recognition must be renewed annually "so the community shows they are continually working;, on their priority issues. For these reasons, LandWatch argues Firewise recognition does not constitute a meaningful wildfire plan for The Tree Farm. With respect to NFPA standards, in his December 11 2014 submission, Mr. Dewey notes these standards begin with disclaimers concerning the need for local evaluation of "products, designs, or installations" and local enforcement. He also notes, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the NFPA standards included in the record are extensive, technical, and detailed, However, applicant's wildfire plan does not identify which NFPA standards apply to The Tree Farm, where, when, how, or by whom the NFPA standards would be implemented, or how and by om they would be enforced and their effectiveness evaluated, wh Althou.€gh Mr. Marshall's written testimony, provided in several letters, does include some specific recornrnendations for implementation of the Firewise program and NFPA standards, these recommendations are not described in the applicant's submitted 'wildfire plan. Rather, the plan appears merely to incorporate the Firewise program and NFPA standards by reference. The Hearings Officer finds that is not sufficient to meet the applicant's burden of demonstrating compliance with this conditional use approval criterion. 1 also find it is not try responsibility, nor that of planning staff or interested parties. to search through Mr. Marshall's extensive materials which he describes as 'a plethora of fire safety standards" -- in order to identify relevant standards and to craft a comprehensive and coherent wildfire pk n therefrom.. Neither do the wildfire plan's mere references to Firevvise and the NFPA provide a sufficient basis for me to impose clear and objective conditions of approvals. l cannot simply condition approval on, compliance with the Firewise Community recognition process and the NFPA standards. See; sters Forest Planning Comity). v. Des s County, 48 LUBA 78 (2004), 198 Or App 311, 108 Tree Farm 2. 247--14-000244-CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP' Page 38 of 114. P3d 1175 (2005).2° Finally, the wildfire plan`s narrative summaries state > the developer and t HOA will undertake certain wildfire plan activities, but they do not`clarif if/when the develo would bow out and the HOA would take over. he per For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's wildfire plan is not sufficient' to demonstrate compliance vvith anis conditional use approval criterion because it simply does not include a meaningful action plan or an explanation of how, when, or by whom the plan will be implemented, And it addresses The Tree Farm as a whole although the record indicates there is considerable variation in location, topography, and vegetation in The Tree Farm lots. However because the Firewise and NFPA standards are nationally recognized, comprehensive and detailed, 1 believe it is feasible for the applicant to create an adequate wildfire plan based on those standards that includes the critical information missing from the submitted plan, 1 find such a plan must include, at a minimum, the following information: identification of each residential'' lot building envelope, the extent and defensible space around each dwelling,, and fire fuel treatments on the bui and the rest of the lot; nature of the ding envelope the setback from the upper edge of slope(s) for each b€.€ilding envelope and dwelling the fuel treatment, if any, on any <slope ''below each dwelling, and if such fuel treatment will occur on open space, what impact it will have on that open space, on surface water drainage, and on wildlife habitat for lots in the WA A Zone; whether and where decks and outbuildings would be permitted on each lot; what specific constru€ction, methods and building material dwelling to meet specific, identified NFPA standards; s will be required for each a ,detailed description of how and by whom the wildfire plan will be implemented monitored, an and the HOA; a d d enforced, with particular attention to the transition between the developer specific, mapped evacuation plan for The Tree Farm and each o evelopments, including directions for operation of the gate on Sage Steppe Drive; a the five Tree Farm a detailed description €af when and how residents an wildfire plan requirements and the evacuation plan. na d d guests will be informed of the, 2. inadequate Recognition of Fire Behavior. The parties disagree as to whether the proposed design and configuration of Tree Farm 2 adequately recognize and address wildfire behavior. For example, Mr. Johnson argues placement of dwellings on the central ridge and 1 pland areas above slopes increases wildfire risk because the dwellings would be both upslope and downwind from a wind -driven wildfire starting in the public and private forest lands or Shevlin Park to the west. Mt. Johnson also argues ues placement of dwellings in the shrub steppe vegetation on the eastern half of The Tree Farm does not reduce the fire risk because fire in that vegetation can produce flame lengths of 10-12 feet. He cairns the previously burned 20 In that appeal, Filed by LandWatch's predecessor, the Court of Appeals held a condition of approval requiring implementation of the applicant's expert's recommendations was improper where the recommendations were imprecise, confusing. hypothetical, and/or in conflict with county code provisions Tree Farm 2, 247.14 -000244 -CU, 247-14-00024 -TP Page 39 of 114 portion of The Tree Farm, including Tree Farm 2, does not create a <fuel break between, the forested western halfof The Tree Farm and the urban and urbanizable lands to the east, as claimed by the applicant, because the Awbrey Hall Fire only changed the type of fuel, reducing the fire risk from "extremely intense to merely intense." As discussed elsewhere in this decision,, Mr. Johnson also argues the proposed secondary emergency access road will not allow timely and efficient evacuation of The Tree Farm in the event of a fire and should' be in a different location. Finally,, Mn Johnson questions the adequacy of water available for fire suppression in light of the uncertainty of The Tree Farm's water supply and pressure. The applicant responds that The Tree Farm configuration and its wildfire plan adequately address and minimize the risk of wildfire. The applicant notes that in his comments on The Tree Farm, Ed >>Keith stated that he doesn't consider' the 10-20 percent slopes on the west side of the central ridge to be particularly steep, and that many local subdivisions have been developed on steeper ground. He stated he believes fire risk can be reduced by setting dwellings and decks well back from the top of the slopes. The applicant also submitted several letters from Mr.' Marshall, discussed in the findings > above, identifying, measures to be implemented in The Tree Farm. However, as discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's wildfire''' plan does not adequately identify what NFPA standards are applicable to Tree Farm lots and dwellings, how and by whom those standards will be implemented and enforced, and what would be the relative role of the developer and the HOA in implementing' the wildfire plan. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that without an adequate wildfire plan, the applicant' also has not demonstrated the site and configuration of Tree Farm 2 sufficient address predicted wildfire behavior affecting residential lots and dwellings. I also find it is neither feasible nor appropriate for me to craft conditions in an effort to make the applicant's proposal approvable. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has failed to demo strate the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed use considering natural hazards. Natural Resource Values. The Hearings Officer finds natural resources on the site of Tree Farm 2 consist of native vegetation including predominantly, shrub -steppe vegetation, scattered rock outcrops, and wildlife habitat including, he Turaio winter deer range in the most southwestern portion of the site within the RR -10 and WA Zones. a. Vegetation. The majority of the site (79%) will be maintained in permanent open space. As, discussed above, the record indicates the applicant has undertaken regular brush cutting and tree thinning for purposes of fire fuel reduction and intends that such vegetation management will continue within the Tree Farm 2 open space tract. in addition, the applicant proposes that each lot in Tree Farm 2 will have a designated building envelope in which the dwelling must be constructed, preserving native vegetation on the residential lots outside the building envelopes As discussed in the findings below, the applicant's wildlife expert testified that in her opinion, management of vegetation on Tree Farm 2 for fire fuel reduction can and will be accomplished'' in a manner consistent with preservation;. of wildlife habitat, b. Rimrock and Rock Outcrops. At the outset, the Hearings Officer finds it is not clear' any rock outcrops in Tree Farm 2 qualify as ''rirnrock," defined in Section 18.04.030 as a ledge or outcropping of rock that "forms a face in excess of 45 degrees.' In any case, the submitted tentative plan and burden of proof statement for Tree Farm 2 indicate the applicant does not intend to remove or alter existing rimrock or rock outcrops. Tree Farm "2. 247-14-001244-C J, 247-14-0002, -TP Page 40 a 4 c. 'Wildlife Habitat. The Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 contains what are essentially two categories of wildlife habitat. The western 68.2 acres of Tree Farm 2 are located in the T urrEalo winter deer range and are subject to the WA Zone established to protect it. The remaining 36 acres of Tree Farm 2 provide wildlife habitat typical of undeveloped land west of Bend, but this habitat is not designated for special protection. Nevertheless, the applicant proposes to protect this typical habitat in a manner similar to that required in the WA Zone. Specifically, the ten Tree Farre 2 dwellings would be clustered near the northern border of the site, all dwellings would be built within a designated building envelope so as to preserve the rest of the residential lots in a natural state, and no new fences would be established. In addition, the Tree F proof states the applicant has removed some wire fencing on The Tree Farm, and intends to remove rnost of the re € 'wining wire fencing and to eradicate and revegetate most of the existing, network of dirt logging roads. The Hearings Officer finds that with these protective measures, the portion of Tree Farm 2 outside the WA Zone is suitable for Tree Farm 2 considering the typical wildlife habitat outside' the winter deer range. arm 2 burden of The tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows that all of the 68.2 acres within the WA Zone and the winter deer range would be maintained in permanent open space with the exception of 0.5 acres of right-of-way for a small segment of Tree Farm Drive. No dwellings and no part of the trail system would be ,located in this part of Tree Farm 2. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the impacts from Tree Farm 2 on the winter deer range would be limited to use of Tree Farm Drive and vegetation management practices for fire fuel reduction. The stated purpose of the ' WA Zone in Section 18.88.0€10 is to "conserve important wildlife areas' while permitting "development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource.' Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the protective measures established in the WA Zone are intended to accomplish those dual purposes. As discussed in the ''IVA' Zone findings, l have found Tree Farm 2 will satisfy all applicable WA Zone criteria. Nevertheless, in its August 19 and December 11, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, ODFW argued The Tree Farm will not protect the Tumalo winter deer range for the following reasons: development of residences in the winter deer range will convert upland habitats into built structures, including roads, rt habitat, horneown deer mig ration c ll be allowed to remove ha orridor I be bitat on their h blocked by dwellings; 0 native forest and lting in permanent loss of es€t. trails and open space will promote low 'impact recreational use — e.g., bicycling, walking, and wildlife viewing that will interfere with deer use of winter range if they are not sufficiently dispersed in the Tree Farm; and the applicant as not identified mitigation measures demonstrating "no net loss'' of habitat pursuant to ODF 's administrative rules.'' At the outset, the Hearings Officer notes no dwellings are proposed in the WA -zoned portion of Tree Fara 2, and therefore the impact of dwellings addressed by ODFVV will not occur in Tree Farm 2. In addition. l find ODFW's habitat mitigation policy, which includes the "no net ''bass"' ODRA" also raised concerns about a proposed pond in The Tree Farre, However, in her October 10, 2014, Dr. Wente stated the pond has been removed from The Tree Farm propose Tree Farm 2, 247-14-000244- U, 247'-14-000245-T€ letter dated Page 41 of 114 standard, does not establish approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use decisions unless they involve local government land use regulations that require habitatmitigation, or proposed plan amendments or zone changes relating to habitat protection. OAR 635-415-0015 and OAR 635- 415-0020 find neither exception applies here. Finally, 1 find ODFW's concerns about low - impact recreational use on trails and in open space are not relevant to Tree Farm 2 because no part, of the trail system would be located ;,in Tree Farm 2. Consequently I find the only relevant wildlife issues are development and use of the segment of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farm 2, and management of the WA -zoned open space for fire fuel reduction; LandWatch submitted an article from the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNWRS) entitled "Science Findings" generally addressing the potential impact of residential development on mule deer w nter range and migration corridors. The article reviews the work of Jeff Kline, a research forester with>PN',NRS, on general deer migration patterns in Deschutes County, and in particular on anticipated effects on deer migration from potential future development of the Cascade 'Timberlands property west of The Tree Farm. The article concludes by listing"land management implications" for such development, including recon€nendations that resource nagers work with landowners to consider protective, measures such as conservation easements to protect winter deer range and migration corridors. ma The WMP, dated May 19, 2014, is attached to;, the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof as Exhibit "l.>` and was prepared by Dr. Wendy Wente, an ecologist and biologist with Mason, Bruce and Girard Natural Resource Consultants (MB&G). The ' lMP' includes an overview of The Tree Farm property, Dr. dente's methods for inves igation and identification of existing wildlife habitat and use. her assessment of the hbi at and wildlife use thereon based on her investigation, a number of specific mitigation and conservation measures, and her opinion regarding wildlife habitat on the portion of The Tree Farm zoned`WA, including residential' lots and open space tracts. The WMP's assessment and recommendations concerning the residential lots are addressed in detail in'the Hearings Officer's decisions in Tree Farms 4 and 5 which propose dwellings in the WA Zone. At page 8 of the 'IMP, Dr. Wente`''id The Tree Farm in relevant part entified fall eneral wildlife utilization trends" for mule deer on Mule Deer Habitat and Migration Corridor. Deschutes County has designated the Tree Farra l ''est property [the part of The Tree Farm located in the WA Zone] within the PSA [The Tree Farm] (Figure 1) as a mule deer winter range (WA Zone), and deer are also known to migrate through the area. Throughout the field investigation, the A4138,G biologist observed signs of diffuse migration through the respective understories of Ponderosa Pine Forests West and East. Wildlife species, especially ungulates; frequently use the PSA in its entirety as evidenced by the presence of deer signs at sample plots and other areas throughout the property. These forested habitats provided minimal evidence of bedding, but they showed signs of significant wildlife use as foraging and corridor habitat. Numerous signs of up-gradiant and down -gr dlant>trails/traclos suggest that forested areas within and throughout the PSA serve as diffuse corridors for traveling to resources iocated outside of the PSA and for accessing forage and possibly water resources. Key areas identified as travel corridors for deer included the dry draw and parallel minor ridges running northeast to southwest between plots H8 and H9 (Figure 2. This corridor extends northward along the property boundary where it parallels Tumalo Creek. Tree Farm 2. 247-14 00244-CU, 247 4 -000245 -TP Page 42 f114`` Deer are also likely using corridors where they wouldexperience lower gradients, such as along the existing road to the south of plot H7, to move between the Tr rnalo Creek riparian corridor and upland areas to the east (outside of the WA, Zone) that provide bunchgrass and antelope, bitterbrush forage. Therefore, the MB&G biologist was able to corroborate the WA Zone designation within the PSA, relative to mule deer habitat and use," (Bold emphasis in original.) Based on the figures and photographs in the VVMP, the Hearings Officer understands Dr Wente to >conclude smile deer use and travel corridors are sufficiently diffuse on The Tree Farm property that deer currently move across the southern portion of Tree Farm 2 and will continue' to do so. Based on Dr. Wente's opinion, find deer would cross the proposed segment of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farm 2. D r. Wente also submitted relevant part as follows: a 'let rd ated October 0, 2014 ponding to ODF concerns 'ODFW commented that the deer migration corridors -could be completely' eradicated or substantially cut-off [sic}, forcing deer to move through the development 'k * *.' The Tree Farm RR -10 parcel, which is overlain by the deer range WA zone, is approximately 393 acres in size. The development plan proposes approximately 30 acres of lots and road right-of-way (combined) within the RR -10 parcel. This maintains the remaining approximately 363 acres (92%) as designated open space. The DCC 18.88.050(D)(2) requires the retention of 80% of an RR 110 zoned area with a WA zone as open space, thus tlrls' development far exceeds the proportion of open space required by the code for a cluster development within a WA Zone. In addition to providing more open space than required by the code for deer winter range on RR -10, the development teen selected a design configuration that would maintain wildlife corridors throughout the open space. The plan provides an extensive corridor along the western boundary, preserving an area where deer would be expected to continue utilizing the Turalo Creek drainage. The two pods of the cluster > development that fall within (TF5) or partially within (TF4) the RR -10 zone are also configured to provide an additional north/south corridor following the statural' lay of the land. Finally, the configuration of the development plan supports east/west deer movement patterns along the southern portion of the RR -10 zone. This area is clearly maintained as a corridor of habitat between the road [Skyliners Road] and the southernmost cluster [in Tree Farms 3 and . These corridors, and the open space in general, will continue to provide space for deer to move across and to utilize the wildlife habitat provided by the WA zone on the RR-1OE" (Bold emphasis added.) n The Hearings Officer understands the above -emphasized language to mean Dr. Wente concluded the proposed open space in the southern portion of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2, including the portions of Tree Farm Drive located therein, would not create a barrier to deer movement or habitat use in that area. The tentative plans for The Tree Farm indicate, and my site visit observafionS confined, that there are a number of existing dirt roads in this area f' The Tree Farm as well as on the southern portion of the adjacent Miller Tree Farm %,property to, the east. The record also indicates these cads and the existing d€rt trails in The Tree Farm have been, and currently are, used by members of the public. In other words, human use of this habitat already is occurring. The applicant proposes to obliterate' and revegetate some of the existing dirt roads in an effort to restore'''habitat and reduce human use thereon. The applicant Tree Farrar;;%2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU. 247 4 -000245 -TP Page 43 a 114 also proposes to remove much of the existing wire fence on The Tree Farm property which wit reduce the physical barriers to deer movement on the property. The Hearings Officer finds development of The Tree Farm and construction of Tree Farm Drive are likely to increase vehicular traffic in the southern portion of The Tree Farm over historic and current use of the existing dirt roads and trails. Nevertheless, considering the relatively low' volume of traffic predicted for Tree Farm drive at buildout -- 476 ADTs Y 'I find the presence of a segment of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farm 2 will not interfere with use of the winter deer range in, general or migration corridors therein in particular. At the public hearing, the Hearings Officer questioned whether ongoing management on The Tree Farm for fire fuel reduction can be undertaken consistent with the conservation of the Tumalo winter deer range, In response, the applicant submitted' a letter dated December 5, 2014 from Dr. `t+ 'erste >>stating the WMP and the applicant's fire plan "are designed to provide a coordinated solution to serve two goals that can in some cases be in conflict maintaining the quality of wildlife habitat while also reducing the risk of wildfire." Specifijcally, Dr. ' .ente noted the fuel reduction treatments proposed for The Tree Farm's open space tracts are merely continuation of the treatments already practiced by Miller Tree Farm on The Tree Farm property. Dr. Wente stated that in her opinion the proposed fuel reduction treatments would not interfere with conservation of the winter deer range for three reasons: (1' ) The Tree Farm open space provides good winter deer range habitat in spite of historic and ongoing fuel reduction treatments thereon; (2) the fuels management techniques will simulate the effects of small-scale wildlife which is an important component of a healthy ponderosa pine ecosystem: and (3) regular brush cutting and removal of juniper trees encourages the growth of forbs that make up much of the winter forage for deer. However, as discussed in the findings above and in my decisions in Tree Farms 1, 3, 4, and 5, I have found it may be necessary to implement more aggressive fuel management methods, such as clearing vegetation downslope from ridgetop dwellings, in order to reduce the fire risk for those dwellings to a sufficient degree that Tree Farm 1 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD and will be compatible with surrounding lands. have found some of this clearing may need to occur in The Tree Farm's open space tracts in the WA Zone. I find the WMP does not appear to contemplate or address the impacts to wildlife habitat from, that additional fuel reduction Finally, the 'A'MP includes at pages 9-12 a number of habitat mitigation and conservation ores. These measures are described as dwelling siting and fencing consistent with the WA Zone not allowing uses prohibited by '''Title 18, and several specific measures addressing vegetation monitoring, removal of non-native species and juniper, preserving ponderosa pine trees and downed logs, and keeping dogs on leash. However, the Hearings Officer finds VVMP suffers from the same lack of detail and clarity as the applicant's wildfire plan, particular concerning when, how, and by whom these measures will be undertaken, how their success will be measured, and how and by whom they will be enforced. Rather, for the most part the WMP states simply that certain things "will be done' or "will' comply." I find that to be effective. and to assure compliance with this conditional''' use approval criterion, the WMP must include more detail, such as an action plan that identifies specific roles and responsibilities for the developer and HOA, describes how and when the developer will hand off to the HOA, and what specific measures will be undertaken consistent with the wildfire plan to assure rnore ,ag rts. sive fuel reduction measures, if required, will not interfere with deer use of the winter range and migration corridors. As with the wildfire plan, I find it is neither feasible nor appropriate for me to craft conditions of approval in an effort to make the applicant's WMP adequate, meas Tree Farre 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 241 -14 -000245 -TP Pa ge44a 114 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer fi d nds the applicant has failedto emonstrate the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the pro resource val FINDING S: ues, posed use considering natural The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128,015(A), Existing and Projected Uses. discussed in the findings below. Existing and projected uses on surrounding prope es 1. East: To the, east across Tree Farm 1 is vacant and zoned UAP -10 and owned by Miller Tree Farm. The Hearings Officer finds that in the short term this property could be developed with ten -acre residential lots or with smaller lots through PUD approval. In the longer tern, because this property is included in the urban area reserve, it may be brought into the Bend UGB and developed with urban -density residential uses, Farther to the east within the Bend UGB and city limits are three public schools and Northwest 'Crossing, a mixed-use developmen including urban -density residential, commercial, and light industrial development. The bearings Officer finds these uses will continue in the future. The applicant's burden of proof states. and agree, that the design of The Tree Farre, with its clustering of dwellings and large swaths of open space, will be compatible with surrounding lands to the east by placing the dwellings closest to the UGB and by serving as a permanent transition between the urban and urbanizable ands to the east and Shevlin Park and forest lands the west. 2r West. To the southwest is the portion of the DNF planned and managed for scenic views and recreation, including the 'Phil's Trail" mountain biking trail network. Immediately to the west is Shevlin Park, a 652 -acre regional park owned and managed by the park district and which includes developed amenities, large areas of open space, and an extensive 'trail system. The Hearings Officer finds it is reasonable to assume hese uses will continue in the future. Farther to the west and northwest are private ''forest' lands including the approximately 3,000 -acre Cascade Timberlands property and several smaller parcels. Evidence in the record concerning current uses on these lands is scant, so,I have found it appropriate for purposes of the suitability criteria addressed above to assume existing uses include those permitted outright in the F-1 Zone, including, some timber harvest. However, as noted above, I am aware bang -term plans for the Cascade Timberlands holdings have included a mix of Heber production, protection of scenic views, and recreation. The Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 2 wil'I not cause a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on nearby ''lands devoted to forest use. I- owever, as discussed in the findings above, I have found the applicant failed to dem or strate the site for Tree Farm 2 'is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering natural hazards and natural resource values due to deficiencies in the wildlife plan and wildfire plan. The question, then, is whether those suitability findings mean Tree Farm 2 will be incompatib e with current and projected uses on public and private forest lands to the west and southwest. I find the primary concerns about incompatibility are the risk of a fire spreading into and from The Tree Farm, and the lack of an adequate wildfire plan and implementation of that plan making that risk higher. 1 believe it is feasible for the applicant to develop an adequate wildfire plan, but unless and until the applicant does so, 1 find Tree Farm 2 is not compatible with existing and proposed uses on Shevlin Park and nearby forest lands. Tree Fara 2, 247-14-000244-C U, 247-14- 024, -TP Page 45 of 114 3. South. To the south across Skyliners Road is The Highlands at Broken Top PUD zoned UAR-1 O and including 37 ten -acre residential lots and open space. Farther to the south is the Tetherow destination resort including residential lots, open space, a golf course and clubhouse. The Hearings Officer finds these uses will continue in the future, although because it is zoned UAR-1O, The Highlands at Broken Top has the potential to be brought into the Bend UGB and redeveloped at urban density. i find Tree Farm 2 will be compatible with surrounding lands to the south because they are developed with uses similar to what is proposed for The Tree Farm -a i.e., rural residential subdivisions. 3. North. To the north are large vacant parcels,; zoned LIAR -1I0, one of which is 376 acres in size and owned by Rio Lobo. The Hearings Officer finds that in the short term€ these lands could be developed with ten -acre lots or with smaller lots through PUD approval. in the longer term, because these lands are included in the urban area reserve, they may eventually be brought into the Bend UGB and developed at urban density. Rio Lobo argues The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 are not compatible with future development of its property for two reasons. First, in his letter dated December 11, 2014, Rio Lobo's attorney, Myles Conway stated the applicant's proposal to create a private road system in The Tree Farm, and to stub off Sage Steppe Drive in Tree Farm 1 at the boundary of Rio Lobo's property, will not be sufficient to support additional through traffic generated by future development of Rio Lobo's land, As discussed in the findings above addressing the adequacy of transportation access, Rio Lobo's traffic engineer predicted that buildout of Rio Lobo's 376 -acre property at urban density would include 1,100 dwellings units generating over 9,000 ADTs. Mr. Conway argues Section 17.3 .0 0(B) requires the applicant to dedicate and construct a public road from The Tree Farm's shared boundary with Rio Lobo's property to Skyliners Road to facilitate future development of Rio Lobo's property. The Hearings, Officer disagrees. As discussed in the subdivision and PUD findings below, I have found the applicant is permitted to develop''' The Tree Farm with private roads. In addition, I have found Section 17.36.020(B) 0(B) of the subdivision ordinance does not require the applicant to dedicate or construct a public road between the Rio Lobo property and Skyliners Road because none is necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic generated by The Tree Farm and/or development of Rio Lobo's property with its current UAR-10 zoning.22 Second, Mr. Conway argues The Tree Farm is not compatible with projected uses on Rio Lobo's property because the majority of Tree Farm dwellings are proposed to be clustered along or near Rio Lobo's southern boundary, and the applicant proposes only one street connection between the properties, the future extension of Sage Steppe Drive. in his January 6, 2015 submission, Mr. Conway asserts this configuration will '`adversely affect future development of the Rio Lobo property' and these proposed Tree Farm homesites "should be subjected to additional setbacks from applicant's northern property boundary to compliance with the compatibility provisions." Mr. Conway argues Tree Farms 1 through 4 must be reconfigured to provide a future road connection at least every 400 feet along the Rio Lobo property boundary, relying on Section 17.6.140()(3)(c). However, as discussed in the findings below, In a letter dated December 23, 2014 Charley representing Miller Tree Farm LLC stated it would be willing to commit to the dedication of public road right-of-way in a mutually agreed upon location across the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property in the event Rio Lobo obtains county land use approval for either a destination resort or a>37 -lot; subdivision or PUD on its adjacent property. That dedication would he to allow Rio Lobo to construct the segment of Skyline Ranch Road from the Rio Lobo property across the Miller Tree Farm property to the recently constructed NorthWest Crossing Drive/Skyline Ranch road intersection adjacent to the new Pacific Crest>Middle School. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247-14-00024 -TP Fag e 46 of 114 the Hearings Officer has found Section 17.36.140(B)(3 (c) of the subdivision ordinance is not applicable'' to Tree Farm 2, and therefore the applicant is not required to provide more than one future road connection along the northern boundary of The Tree Farm. Rio Lobo's property and the vacant Miller Tree Farm property east of Tree Farre 1 are zoned UAR-1O and abut the Bend UGB, Consequently, the Hearings Officer finds the nature and timing of development on these two properties likely will depend on whether and when they are brought into the UGB and when Skyline > Ranch Road; a designated collector, is dedicated and;;, developed' north of its current terminus near Skyliners Road. Annexation of these properties into the UGB could allow the urban -density development contemplated in Rio Lobo's traffic study. However, I find that as long as the properties remain in the urban area reserve, development will be at much lower density. The applicant's burden of proof states The Tree Farm was conceived as a permanent transition area between urban and urbnizable land to the east and Shevlin Park and large areas of forest to the west. That transition is created by clustering most of the dwellings in the UAR-1 O zoned portion of The Tree Farm, including all of the dwellings in Tree Farm 2, and placing most of the, open space on the RR-1O/WA-zoned property near Shevlin Park and forest lands. For these reasons, I find that regardless of the ultimate development density on the Rio Lobo and Miller Tree Farm properties, the transition area created by The Tree Farm cluster/PUDs will be compatible with their development. Opponent LandWatch argues the applicant mischaracterizes The Tree Farrn as creating a "transition area" because "there are no urban uses for a substantial distance to the east," and therefore the applicant's proposal represents "an isolated pocket subdivision that doesn' provide a transition to anything." The Hearings Officer disagrees. The properties east and north of The Tree Farm are zoned UAR-1O' and therefore are planned and zoned for eventual inclusion in the Bend UGB and urban -density development. That these properties are undeveloped does not change the fact that they are urbanizable lands and ultimately may be developed at much higher density than The Tree Farm. Accordingly, 1 find the characterization of proposed The Tree Farm as a 'transition area' is accurate. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 will be corrrpatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding lands to the north, east and south, but will not be connpatible with Shevlin Park and forest as ds tc 'the west because of deficiencies in the applicant`s wildfire plan and WMP. C. These standards' and any other standards of DCC 18,123; may be met by the i reposition of conditions calculated" to insure that the standard wH be met, FINING: As discussed throughout this decision, the Hearings Officer has recommended that if the applicant's proposal is approved on appeal, such approval should be subject to conditions of approval designed to assure compliance with applicable standards and criteria, 1. Section 18 128,040, Specific Use Sta nd a rds A coo- ditio at ease shall comply with the stamtlards of ttta :ct e ire which it is located and with the standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.123.046 through DCC 18.128.370 FINDINGS; Compliance with the specific use standards for cluster developments in Section 18.128.200 is addressed in the findings immediately below. Tree Farm 2, 247.14-00 244 -CU, 247-i4-O0O245-T1 Page 47 of 114 Section 18. 2 Uses Only) a2 0 0R Cluster Develop en (Singl'e Farxtily Residenti l Such uses may be authorized as a cond consideration of the following factors: itional use only after, FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the language of >.this paragraph discussed in the findings below do not establish specific approval standard but rather identify issues l must consider. 1 Need for residential use proposed development, he eans the factors for Tree Farm 2 mediate area of the FINDINGS: The applicant addressed this factor by submitting as Exhibit "K" to its burden of proof reports identifying the homes, lots and land currently for sale, pending sales, and actual sales during the past 12 months in developments in close proximity to The Tree Farm. These developments include Northwest Crossing, Shevlin Commons, The Highlands at Broken Top, Tetherow, and Shevlin Meadows. The report also includes a copy of the June 12, 2014 "Bratton Report," a monthly compilation of data on residential sales complied by the Bretton Appraisal Group. The staff report summarizes the reports in Exhibit "IC as follows; "Out of a total of 131 listings, 81 lots have sold in the past year and nine sales are pending. This translates to 7.5 sales per month. As of the time of the reports, the applicant indicates a standing inventory of 41 properties on the market, or gust under 5 months inventory. The applicant notes that since January 2014, the number of saies and pending sales has increased to an average of nearly ten, per month. Assuming current activity breis, the applicant concludes there is just over a 4 nor th supply of inventory on the market. Out of a total of 178 single-family home listings priced up to $2,000,000, 116 homes have sold in the past year and 29 are pending, absorbing inventory at jest over 12 sales per month. Standing inventory includes 33 homes on the market -- a dozen of which are either under construction or to -be -built ---� providing fewer than three months of single-family homes on the market. Opponents Connie Peterson and Christine Herrick argue the applicant should have identified' and addressed the need for affordable housing. The Hearings Officer understands these concerns. However, l find use of the broad term "residential uses" in this factor does not specify or require analysis of any particular types of housing. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated there is 'a need for residential uses in the immediate area of The Tree Farr, and the proposed dwellings in Tree Farm 2 will address that need. Fl N DINGS:''. 2. Environ mental, social and economic impacts likely to result from the development, including ir€':•spacts on public facilities such as schools and roads. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 48 of l l4 Environmental Impa ts. Tree Farm 2 is configured so that the ten proposed dwellings and most of the roads that will serve them are clustered on relatively level, sparsely treed land in the northeast corner of the development in the UAR-10 Zone. The remainderof Tree Farm 2 will be, preserved as open space with the exception of a small ',% area near the southern property boundary on which a segment of Tree Farm Drive will be constructed. The applicant proposes to establish building envelopes on each residential lot in which dwellings must' be constructed, Remaining land on the residential lots and the open space tract would be maintained in its natural state except for periodic removal of juniper trees and brush cutting required for fire fuel reduction. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 2 will not interfere, and will be compatible, with accepted forest practices on nearby public and private forest lands. I have also found that without an adequate wildfire plan the applicant has not demonstrated The Tree Farm and Tree Farm '2 wi'Il be compatible with current and projected uses on Shevlin Park and nearby forest lands to the west. in his December 11, 2014 letter, Paul Dewey argues the Rear€ngs Officer should not consider environmental impacts based on a comparison of the impacts of clustering vs, development of The Tree Farm property with the maximum five dwellings that would be permitted under its current configuration and zoning, or with alternate development patterns such as a traditional subdivision with 10 -acre lots and dwellings spread throughout the 533 -acre property. His letter goes on to state: ,There are apparently only five lots, so the current alternative would be five houses. ''Though the zoning allows a house on a 10 -acre parcel, there is no basis to conclude that 50 10 -acre lots can be created here," (Underscored emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer disagrees. There are reasons to find a traditional subdivision with ten 10- acre lots' could be approved on each of the five Tree Farm legal lots. First, a similar development The Highlands at Broken Top -- was approved immediately south of The Tree Farm. Although this subdivision technically is a PUD,73 it was approved with 37 mostly ten -acre lots on land zoned LIAR -10 and adjacent to a large open space area abutting the DNF. Second, traditional subdivisions do not require conditional use approval in the RR -10 and UA -10 Zones. They are subject to the 10 -acre minimum lot size in those zones, and to the subdivision standards in Tine 17. As discussed in the findings below concerning compliance with Title 17, the vast majority of those standards are clear and objective design standards. The exceptions are the subjective and discretionary standards in Section '1' 7.16.100 that require the developer to demonstrate the subdivision would establish orderly development and land use patterns in the area, provide for the preservation of natural features and resources, and not create excessive demand on pubs €c facilities and services, and utilities. 1 find it is possible for the applicant to satisfy those standards with conditions of approval and with the above-described revisions to its wildfire plan and WMP. Accordingly, 1 find there is nothing improper in comparing the propose cluster/PUDs to the alternative of a traditional subdivision when weighing the environrnental impacts of The Tree Fara and Tree Farm 2. LandWatch also argues the applicant has failed to demonstrate The Tree negative environmental impacts on Tumalo Creek. Again, the Hearings;Offi Farm will not have c r disag3eek. z The Cascade;, Highlands decision, included in the record as an attachment to Anthony Raguine's November 17, 2014 memorandum, states "the 37 lots are all about 10 acres in size (with the exception of proposed Lot 22 that will be 18.05 acres)," and "the remaining acreage iapproxirnateiy 20 acres] be platted as a separate lot" and designated 'not a part" of the subdivision. Tree Faris 2, 247 -14• -000244 -CU, 247' -14 -000245 -'ll Page 49 of 114 potential im the centra elsewhere pacts on Tumalo Creek would be limited to erosion and runoff from the wes ridge into the creek, and 1 find the applicant's drainage plan, discussed be contained on site. in this decision, demonstrates runoff will t side of in detail Because the Hearings Officer has found the applicant failed to demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering wildlife habitat and wildfire risk,'''! also find the applicant > failed to demonstrate Tree Farm 2 adequately considers and addresses this cluster development factor. Social Impacts. The, Hearings Officer has found the applicant demonstrated a need for additional residential uses on the west side of Bend that The Tree Farm will address. Tree Farm 2 will cluster ten dwellings in the UAR-1 O Zone relatively close to three public schools and commercial and light -industrial uses in NorthWest Crossing, as well as possible future urban- density development on the adjacent Rio Lobo and >Miller Tree Farm properties. The configuration i rilll place approximately 82 percent of the Tree Farm 2 open space in the RR -10 and WA -Zones closest to Shevlin Park and the public and private forest lands to the west: As discussed above, ! have found the proposed configuration of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 will provide a transition between the Bend urban area and the vast forested land to the west. find the proximity of Tree F`'rnn 2 to Shevlin Park and to the extensive "Phil's Trail' mountain' busing trail' network in the DNF will facilitate use of these resources by Tree Farm residents. LandkNatdh argues The Tree Farm will have negative social impacts' on Shevlin Park, The Hearings; Officer finds this argument ignores the record, The park district submitted several' comments in support of The Tree Farm: The only concerns the park district expressed were the need to refine the proposed trail alignments between The Tree Farm and Shevlin Park, and the need to provide for off—street parking for trail access. In his December 11, 2014 comments, Steve Jorgensen, the park district's Park and Trail Planner, stated that increasing public access to the south portion of Shevlin Park Is a positive development" that will relieve some of the current and future demands on the limited parking areas at the north end of Shevlin Park, and will serve to discourage transient camps on the son€thern portion of the park. Mr. Jorgensen recommended several measures to facilitate trail access and off-street parking: These would occur on the adjacent !'Miler Tree Farm property. Specifically, Mr. Jorgensen recommended the applicant dedicate a 0' -wide "re -locatable `floating' public trail easement' to the park district' that abuts and runs parallel to the Skyliners Road right-of-way between Crosby Drive and the proposed intersection between Tree Farm Drive and Skyliners Road. He also recommended the applicant improve a new mountain bike trail within that easement in order to provide a connection between the existing Wes Bend Trail along Skyliners Road that terminates on the east side of Crosby Drive and the proposed trail system in The Tree Farm. The Hearings Officer finds that because it appears from the tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 that this easement and the recommended improvements thereto would be located entirely within the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property, I lack authority to require the easement and improvements as a condition of approval for Tree Farm 2. Econo ac Impacts. The applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that The Tree Farm's clustered development pattern is the most oust -efficient manners in which to dzov&ofa a large rural tract and much more efficient than providing public facilities and services to widely dispersed ten -acre lots. For example, clustering of dwellings requires shorter extensions of streets and utilities reuired'to serve residential ots. In addition, ! find that if the applicant is able Tree Farm 2, 247;414--000244-CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP' Page 50 of 114 to secure domestic water through connection to the City of Bend water system or the Avion, Water Company there will be no need for individual on-site wells.24 Public Facilities. Comments on the applicant's proposal from Peter Russell and George Kolb indicate no improvements to existing streets or intersections are necessary. No comments on road improvements were received from the city's public works department. As discussed in the findings above concerning the adequacy of transportation access to The Tree ,,Farm. the Hearings Officer has found the development will not create an undue burden on affected transportation facilities, Finally, as discussed in the findings below, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found that providing domestic water to The Tree Fara and Tree Farm 2 well not place an undue burden on city water facilities. Schools. The UAR-1O zoned portion of Tree Farm >2 is located within the boundaries of the Send -lea Fine School District,25 As discussed above, three of the district's schools u- Miller Elementary, Summit High School, and the new Pacific Crest' Middle School under construction -- are located within a mile of Tree Fare 2. The school district did not submit comments on the applicant's proposal. However, the Hearings Officer is aware the school district responds to growth in student populations by expanding school capacity and/or adjusting school boundaries, and typically requests that private subdivision streets be subject to public access easements to facilitate school bus travel the€ -eon. As discussed above, the applicant proposes to dedicate public access easements over all private Tree Farm roads. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 will have positive social and economic impacts, but in the absence of an adequate wildfire plan and WMP, the applicant has not demonstrated Tree Farm 2 will`'' have entirely positive environmental impacts. Effect of the development on the rural ;.character of the a r°e, FINDINGS: Tree Farm 2 is>iocated in a>rural area west of the Bend UGB that is characterized' by: (a) lege vacant parcels zoned UAR-1O to the east and north, (b) large UAR-1O zoned parcels to the south across Skyllners '''Road with low-density residential development' (The Highlands at Broken Top) and a destination resort (Tether ,r), (c),,Shevlin Park; and (d) tens of thousands of acres of public and private forest lands to the west, The Hearings Officer has found The Tree Farm will provide a transition between the urban and urbaniable lands to the east and the vast resource 'lands to the west. The overall density of development in The Tree Farm will be the same as in The Highlands at Broken Top. The proposed configuration of The Tree Farm will cluster the majority of dwellings in the UAR-10 Zone and will locate the majority of open space in the RR -10 and WA Zones. For these reasons, l find Tree Farm 2 will be consistent with the rural character of the area. The applicant argues The Tree Fano also will provide economic benefits by having the HOA own and maintain PUD roads, thereby relieving the . unt? rtlf swath ?iainteri a.E1 �? expenses. I owem, In his comments on the applicant's proposal, George Kolb noted that the county no longer is accepting roads into its road maintenance network. 25 The record indicates the RR -1€0 zoned portion of the Tree Farm is located in the Redmond School District. The applicants burden of proof states the applicant will request that the Bend and Redmond school districts allow the thirteen Tree Farm horesites in the Redmond> School District to be transferred to the Bend -I -.a Pine School District, Farm 2 , 247 4 -000244 -CU, 247'-14-0002451_, Page 51 of 114 Effect of the development on agricultural, forestry, wildlife or other natural resource uses r the area. FINDING: The record indicates there are no agricultural uses in the area. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on nearby land devoted to forest use, and will be compatible with such uses. With the exception of vegetation management for fire fuel reduction, the applicant proposes to retain all existing vegetation on The Tree Farm open space tracts as well as on the portions of the two- acre residential lots outside the designated building envelopes. The applicant proposes to site dwellings on relatively level ground, thus minimizing the need for significant excavation and fill, and to site the private roads to minimize steep slopesand road cuts. Finally, as also discusses above, the Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 2 will comply with all applicable requirements n the WA Zone. However, I have found that in the absence of an adequate wildlife habitat management and wildfire plans, the applicant has not demonstrated The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 will be compatible with nearby forest lands or with the Tumalo winter deer range For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2>.will not have a negative effect on ,agriculture or forestry. But I have found the applicant has failed to demonstrate Tree Farm 2 will not have a negative effect on wildlife habitat in the winter deer range. Therefore, l find Tree Farm 2 does not satisfy this criterion. The conditional use shat findings are made: n of be ranted unless the followin 9 All development and alterations of the natural andscape, will be limited to 35 percent of the land and at bast 65 percent shall be kept in open space. In cases where the natural landscape has been altered or destroyed by a prior land use, such as surface mining, dam construction or timber removal, the County may allow reclamation and enhancement of the open space area if enhancement creates or improves wetlat ds, creates or improves wildlife habitat, restores native vegetation or provides for agricultural or forestry use of the property after reclamation. FINDINGS; The Hearings Officer>. has found the WA Zone's 80 -percent open space requirement must be met entirely within''the WA -zoned portion of Tree Farm 2. Because 67.7 acres of the 68.2 acres of Tree Farm 2 in the WA Zone will be preserved as permanent open space, the applicants proposal satisfies the WA Zone standards. With respect to the 65 -percent open space requirement in this paragraph, the applicant's burden of proof states 82.8 acres of the 104,2 -acre Tree Farm 2 (79 percent of the site) will be in open space, satisfying this standard. Tree Farm 2, The area not dedicated to open space or common use may be platted as residential dwelling. lots 'or parcel that are a minimum of two acres and a maximum of three acres in sizer Their use shall be restricted to single-family use. Single-family use may include accessory uses and County authorized home occupations. Uses permitted in the open space area , 247 -1€4 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP P ce52of114 may include the management of natural resources; trail systems or other outdoor uses that are consistent with the character of the natural landscape, FINDINGS: The applicant proposes that Tree Farm 2 will have ten 2 -acre residential lots with single-family ily dwellings constructed within designated building envelopes. The applicant proposes that the dedicated open space tracts will be managed for trail systems, wildlife habitat, and forest management consistent' with preservation of wildlife habitat and the reduction of fire fuels. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion, 3 in the Wildlife Area Combining ''Zone, an addition to compliance with,; the WA zone development restrictions, uses and activities must be consistent with the required Wildlife Management Pan, The Plan shall be approved if it proposes all of the following in the required open space area: FINDINGS As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the WA Zone requirements apply only to the portion of Tree Farm 2 zoned WA. Therefore, I find it is applicable only to the 67.7 acres of open space and road right-of-way', in Tree Farm 2 zoned WA. The applicant's WMP proposes that uses in the open space tracts in Tree Farm 2 will be limited to anagement of vegetation for fire fuel reduction and winter range habitat conservation as well as low -intensity recreation uses such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, Therefore, l' find the proposed uses and activities in the open space tract will be consistent' with the WMP. However, as discussed above, I have found the WMP does not adequately address potential' impacts on wildlife habitat from more aggressive fire fuel reduction that may be required to protect ridgetap dwellings from wildland fire. Preserves, protects and enhances wildlife habitat for WA zone protected species as specified in the County Comprehensive Man (DCC Title 23); and FINDINGS: The portion of Tree Farm 2 lin the WA Zone consists of 67.7 acres of open space and 0,5 acres of right-of-way for Tree Farm Dave. As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by reference ''herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant failed to demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering wildlife habitat because the WMP is deficient in not addressing potential impacts on habitat fr more aggressive fire fuel treatments that may be required for ridgetop dwellings to reduce the risk of fire. However, 'I have found on the basis of the WIMP that deer will continue to use the habitat in the open space area for browsing, and the segment of Tree Farm Drive will not obstruct the existing deer migration corridor across the southern portion of Tree Farm 2 b. Prohibits golf courses, tennis courts, swirna ing pools, marinas, ski, runs or other developed recreational uses " of similar linter city, 'Low intensity recreational uses such as properly located bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails, wildlife viewing areas and fitness courses may be permitted; and Tree Farm 2, 247 -'14 -000244 -CU, 24 s"- 14-00024 TP Page 53 of 114 FINDINGS: The only developed recreational use the applicant pnopcses for the Tree Farm 2 open space is the p destri nlbicycle trail system. The Hearings Officer finds this is a low - intensity use permitted by this paragraph. Provides a supplemental, private open space area on home lots by imposing special ysard, setback of 100 feet on yards adjacent to required open, space areas. hi this yard, no structures other than fences >consistent with DCC 18.8.070 may be constructed. The size of the yard may be reduced during development review if the County finds that, through the review of the wildlife management plan, natural landscape protection or wildlife values will achieve equal or greater protection through the approval of a reduced setback. In granting an adjustment, the County may require that a specific bulling envelope be, shown on the final plat' or may impose other conditions that assure the natural resource values relied upon to justify the exception to the special yard requirements will be protected. FINDINGS: The tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows none of its ten proposed residential lots is adjacent to the open space within the WA Zone. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable. Nevertheless, the applicant has proposed building envelopes for all residential lots in The Tree Farm including the ten lots in Tree Farm 2. Those building envelopes show setbacks of at lest 100 feet between the adjacent UAR4O zoned open space and the building envelope. d , Off-road motor vehicle use shall be prohibited in the open space area. FINDINGS. The applicant's burden of proof states no off-road motor vehicle use will be permitted in the open space``' tracts, The Hearings Officer finds the applicant .will be required as a condition of approval to prohibit off-road vehicle use on the Tree Farm 2 open space tract, and to enforce that prohibition, through the development's CC&Rs. Adequate corridors o allow for wildlife development. nt he cluster property to passage through the FINDINGS: As discussed ''in the findings above concerning compliance with the genera conditional use standards in Chapter 18,128, the applicant's WMP identified several existing migration corridors in the winter deer range on The Tree Farm, including north -south corridors in the western portion of The Tree Farm outside the boundaries of Tree Farm 2, and an east -west corridor along the southern part of Tree Farm 2 running parallel to>Skyliners Road. Based on the WMP, the Hearings Officer has found the open space tract and the small segment of Tree Farm Drive in the VIA -zoned portion of Tree Farm 2'''will not create a barrier to deer migration along this existing corridor, and therefore I find this existing corridor llow for wildlife passage as required by this criterion. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14.000244 -Cid, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 54 of 114 All lots within the development shall be contiguous to one another except for occasional corridors to allow for human passage, wildlife travel, natural, features such as a stream or bluffor development of property divided by a public road which shall not be wider than the average lot width, unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that special circumstances warrant a wider corridor. FINDINGS: : The tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows all ten residential lots will be contiguous except for the intervening rights-of-way for Rid eline and Sage Steppe Drives. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion, -'6 FINDINGS: Co below plianoe with the a All applicable subdivision or partition requirements contained in DCC Tyle 17, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance, shall be met. p plica ble criteria in Title "I7 ''i ad d ressed in the in in gs The total number of units shall be established by reference to the lot size standards of the applicable zoning district and combining zones. FINDINGS: The RR -1€0, LIAR -10 and WA Zones establish a general density of one dwrelling per ten acres. The applicant proposes, ten residential lots, on the 104,2 -acre, Tree Farm 2 property, therefore satisfying these standards, The open space of the proposed development shall be platted as a separate parcel or In common ownership of some or all of the clustered lots or parcels. For any open space or common area provided as a part of the cluster development, the owner shall submit proof of deed restrictions recorded in the County records.. The deed restrictions shall preclude all future rights to construct a residential dwelling on the lot, parcel or tract designated as open space or common area for as long as the lot, parcel or tract remains outside an urban growth boundary. The deed shall also assure that the use of the open space shall be continued in the use allowed by the approved duster development plan, unless the whole development is brought inside an urban growth boundary. If open space is to be owned by a homeowner's association or if private reads are approved, 'a homeowner's ass.ociption € t st 26 The record indicates the only gap between residential ,lots within The Tree Farm — other than those created by roads — is proposed between Lot 37 in Tree Farm 4 and Lot 43 in Tree Farm 5. The WIMP indicates this gap is located at a natural topographic break and existing wildlife corridor between Tumalb Creek and the higher ground on the subject property. Tree Farm 2, 247.14-01 244 -CU, 247-14-000245 TP Pane 55 of 1 1 be formed to manage the open space and/or road areas. The bylaws of the association must be recorded prior to or concurrent with the filing of the final plat. If the open space is >located within the Wildlife Area, Combining Zone, the management plan for the open, space u be recorded with the deed restrictions or bylaws of the homeowner's association. FINDINGS: The tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows the 82.8 acres of open space would be platted as a separate tract. The >Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the the applicant' will be required to show the Tree Farm 2 open space as a separate tract on the final plat. The applicant submitted as Exhibit' "L" to its burden of proof a draft set of deed restrict ons for the open space tracts in The Tree Farm. Those deed restrictions would prohibit development' within the open space tracts for as long as The Tree Farm is located outside the Bend UGB, As discussed in the findings above under the administrative rules, the Hearings Officer has found that to carry out the applicant's intent to prevent development on The Tree Farm open space tracts fry perpetuity, the applicant'' will be required as a condition of approval, and prior to submitting for find approval any plat for Tree Farm development, to provide to the Planning Division for county review and approval <a copy of the required deed restrictions, and to provide to the Planning division copies of the recorded deed restrictions after recording. The applicant also proposes, and will be required as conditions of approval, to record the WMP along with the required deed restrictions, to form an HOA to own and manage the open space tracts and roads within The Tree Farm, and to develop bylaws for the HOA.27 8. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in other parts of the County's land use regulations, roads with n a cluster development may be private roads and lots or parcels may be created that front on private roads only. These roads must meet the private road standards of DCC Title 17, and are not subject to public road standards under DCC Title 17. An agreement acceptable to the Road Department and County Lega Counsel shall be required for the maintenance of private roads. Public roads may be required where street continuation standards of DCC Title 17 call for street connections and the County finds that the benefits of street extension are significant and needed in the future, given the established pattern of street development on adjoining, properties and transportation distribution needs. The rif f ''Os' to the w3ppllt ant'?.>'burderi of prof indiQatias the applicant has diricussed potential acquisition of the most western open space tracts in The Tree Farm by the Trust for Public Lands to facilitate future transfer of these tracts to a public entity such as the park district or the IJSFS. Tree Farm open space not so transferred would continue to be managed by the HOA. The Hearings Officer finds haat because it is likely any transfer of Tree Farm open space to another entity will require some type of land use approval e.g., lot line adjustment, modification of conditions — l need not address in the decision the legal effect of such a transfer on conditional use approval of Tree Farm 2. Tree Far 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247' '14--000245--TP' Page 56 of 14 FI N DI N a. priva b. priva GS: The H ea area dedicated for public road rights of way within or adjacent to a planned or cluster development or required by the County du ing cluster development review shall be subtracted from the gores acreage of the duster development prior to calculating, compliancewith open space requirements rings Officer finds this su bsection establishes the fo te roads are permitted in Tree Farm 2; te PUD roads must meet the county's priva te road Stan d rds: lowing': c, a'road €T€aintenance agreement acceptable to the county €ter.€st be executed; and d ., public roads may be reg lied in the subdivision where: street continuation stand ards in Title 17 ca H for street connections; and the county finds the benefits of street extension are significant and needed in the future, given the established pattern of street development on adjoining properties and transportation distribution needs. The applicant proposes to construct a private road, Ridgeline Drive, in Tree Farm 2, and to improve this road to the applicable county standards for local private roads including 20 feet of paved surface. In addition, the applicant proposes to dedicate to the public 60 feet of right-of- way for Sage Steppe Drive in Tree Farm 1 in order to provide public road access to the adjoining Rio Lobo property to the north and the adjoining Miller Tree Farm property to the south. Ridgeline Drive will connect with Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 to provide access to Skylin€ers Road for the residential lots in Tree Farms 1, 2 and ' , The applicant proposes that all Tree Farm roads will be owned and managed by The Tree Farm HOA. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to execute a road maintenance agreement acceptable to the county and to record such agreement prior to submitting for approval the final plat for any Tree Farm development The record indicates there are no existing streets on surrounding ands for which a connection to allow continuation of such street is required. Section 17,36,020(B) provides that planned developments shall include public streets "where necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic." However, as discussed in detail in the findings below, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found this section does not require the applicant to dedicate or construct a public road from Rio Lobo's property to Skyliners Road because such a public road is not necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic within The Tree Farm or from the Rio Lobo property. Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearings Officer finds that with imposition of the conditions of approval described above. Tree Farm 2 will satisfy this criterion. All service connections shall be the minimum leng necessary and underground where feasible; h FINDINGS: The preliminary utility plan for Tree Farm 2, Exhibit "E" to the burden of proof, shows all new utility services will be located underground within road rights-of-way. The, Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -€:300244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 57o 114 Hearings Officer finds this proposal will' assure sereice connections are the €n€nimurn length necessary, therefore satisfying this critericara. FIND 10. The number of new deli€ units to be clustered n of exceed 10. 11. The number of new lots or parcels to be created not exceed 10. NGS- The applicant proposes ten residential lots in Tree Farr northea st corner of the development, therefore satisfying these criteria. 2 clustered does does near the 12, The development is not to be served by a nes€ community sewer system or by any new extension of sewer system from tiittrin an urban growth ''boundary or from within an unincorporated coram unity. FINDING. ,app€icant'' proposes to serve the residential ots in Tree Far nn 2 with individual on- site septic systems, therefore satisfying this criterion. 1. The development will not force a significant change in accepted ` f or forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use, and will not significantly' increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices there FINDINGS: : As discussed in detail in the findings above concerning compliance with the applicable administrative rules in OAR 660-004-040 and the general conditional use standards n Chapter 18,128, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted fare or forest ctices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use. pra 14. All dwellings in a cluster development setback a minimum of 100 feet from the bo of an adjacen receiving spe t lot zoned Exclusive Farm :lel assessment for farm use. must be undary Ilne Use that is FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because there are no lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) adjacent to the subject property. FIN DING : The applicant All applications shall following information 1 be accompanied by a plan with the A plat map meeting all the subdivision req uairements of DCC Title 17, the Subdivision/Partition Ord A draft of the deed restric 18.128.200(B)(7). brnitted a tentativ showing all information required under Title 17 Tree Farm 2, 247 -14.000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP plan for 'T n addition, !mince. tions required' by DCC ree Farm 2 including a plat map the applicant submitted as Exhibit Page 58of114 'L" to the burden of proof draft deed restriction language for the open space tract. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant "will be required to submit for county review, and to, record, deed restrictions that permanently prohibit development on these tracts. For these reasons, and with imposition of the >.conditions of approval described above, find Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion, A written document establishing an acceptable homeowners association assuring the maintenance of oor rrron property, if any, in the development. The document shal'I include a method for the resolution of disputes by the association membership, and shall be included as part of the bylaws. FIRING. The applicant submitted as part of Exhibit HOA bylaws, therefore satisfying this criterion. FIN find find to the burden of proof CC&Rs and 4. In the WA Combining Zone, the applicant shall submit an evaluation of the property with a Wildlife' Management Plan for the open space area, prepared by a wildlife bio logistthat includes the following: A description of the condition of the property and the current ability of the property to support use of the open space area by wildlife protected by the applicable WA zone during the periods specified in the comprehensive plan; and A description of the protected species' and periods of >,protection, identified by the comprehensive plan, and the current use of the open space area; and A management plan that contains prescriptions that will achieve compliance with the wildlife potecti guidelines in the comprehensive plan. In overlay zones that are keyed to seasons or particular tunes of the year, restrictions or protections may vary based on the time of year. The management plan may also propose protections or enhancements of benefit to other types of wildlife that may be considered in weighing use impacts versus plan benefits. DINGS: The applicant submitted a WMP as Exhibit "i" to the burden of proof. Based on the Ings above concerning the WIMP, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer s the management plan contains the information required in this subsection. 5. Photographs and a narrative description of the natural Landscape features of the open space areas of the subject property. If the features are to be removed or Tree Farm 2, 247-14- 244 -CU, 247.14 -000245 -TP Page 59 of 114 developed', the applicant shall explain why removal is appropriate. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof includes aerial photographs of The Tree Fara and surrounding property as well as a narrative description of the natural landscape features and proposed open space areas in Tree Farm 2. The applicant does not propose to introduce any andscaping, or to remove any existing landscape features, in the open space areas except as necessary for ongoing fire fuels treatment, However, as discussed in the findings above the Hearings, Officer has found the WMP is deficient in not addressing potential impacts to wildlife' habitat from more aggressive fire fuel treatments that may be necessary to protect ridgetop dwellings, Therefore, find the applicant has not fully satisfied this criterion. o A description c proposed, if any. f the forestry or a ricultu FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states no agricultural uses are proposed for Tree Farm 2, and that the only forestry uses proposed are fire fuels reduction treatment to reduce wildfire risk and to improve wildlife habitat. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the Tree Farm2 proposal provides all information required by these criteria, D. Dimensional Standa rd : Setbacks and height Illmitatlons shat be as prescribed In the zone in which the development is proposed unless adequate justification for variation is provided the Planning Director or Hearings Body.. FINDINGS. The setback and height limitations in the RR -10 and UAR-10 Zones are discussed in the findings above and below. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to meet these standards for the dwellings in Tree Farm 2, ni murn area for a cluster deve d eternaind by the zone in which''it is opment shad'' proposed. be FlNDIN S: The 104.2 -acre Tree Farm 2 meets the 40 -acre minimum size for a cluster development in the WA Zone. The RR -10 Zone does not <establish a minimum size for cluster developments. As discussed in the findings below, Tree Farm 2 satisfies the five -acre minimum size for a planned unit development in the UAR-1 O Zone. E. Conditions for phased development shall be specified and performance bonds shall be required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to assure completion of the project as stipulated, if required improvements are not completed prior to platting,i FIND The applicant does not propose to develop Tree Farm 2 in phases, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable. However, as discussed above, the applicant proposes to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to provide road access for all Tree Farm 2 247-14.000244- U, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 60of114 residential lots in those developments. I find such concurrent d condition of approval for Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 evelopment wi F. Developments with private roads s pedestrian facilities that comply requirements of Title 17, be required as a hall provide bicycle and with the prlva to roa FINDINGS: : The applicant proposes to odate bicycle and pedestrian traffic via a network of paved multi -use trails and native surface recreational/mountain biking ''trails. The applicant proposes that only the southern portion of Tree Farm Drive would be designed to accommodate bicycle traffic on its paved surface. All other paved paths would run parallel to, but be separate from, the PUD roads, The applicant proposes, and will be required as a condition of approval, to construct all subdivision roads with the applicable standards in Title 17 for Ir cal public and private roads. F P ND an N G. Bicycle and pedestrian connectins shall be provided at the ends of cul-de-sacs, at mid -block, between subdivision plats, etc., in the following situations, Connections shall have a ON foot right of way, with at least a 10 -foot wide useable surface, shall be as straight as possible, and shall not be more than 400 feet long,;, GS: The applicant submitted as Exhibit "C,: to its burden of proof, at shows four types of trails within the Tree Farm: th 1. a 10 -foot -wide paved section of Tree Farm Drive from Skyliner 3; 2. several 8 -foot -wide "neighborhood trails" running along 3. recreation/mountain bike trails leading of The Tree Farm and connecting with th Road r Tree he private Tree F p Farm 2 a,' "Tr ail nt rrr roa n Tree Fa ds; across the open space in the RRL10/'NA zoned portion e existing trail system in Sheviin Park; and 4. existing "perimeter trails' with "native surface" traversing the open space in the>RR-10iWA zoned portion of The Tree Farm between Shevlin Park and the top of the central ridge on The Tree Para property. The tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 shows a proposed cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Ridgeline Drive at the southern boundary of the adjacent Rio Lobo property. The topographical'' information on the tentative plan shows a steep slope between the proposed cul-de-sac and the nearest eastern and southern boundaries of Tree Farm 1, As discussed in the findings above, Sage Steppe Drive in Tree Farm 1 is proposed to be stubbed off at the northern and southern property boundaries of the most northeastern portion of Tree Farm 1, and to be gated at the southern boundary of Tree Farm 1 where it would connect with a temporary emergency access road that would run south through the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive. The tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 shows the three public schools within the Bend UGB are located approximately 2,500 feet southeast of the cul-de-sac in Tree Farm 1.28 For these reasons, the Hearings Officer found in my decision in Tree Farm '1 that no bicycle connections are required 28 The staff report states the three schools;. are located approximately 450 feet from Tree Farm 2. The Hearings Officer finds that calculation is not consistent with the scale shown on the tentative plan. Tre Farm 2, 247-14€-000244- 1 , 47.14 -000245 -TP Pa ge61of114 either at the end o no nid-block bicyc f flee P.idgeline cul-de-sac or mid -block anywhere in Tree Farm 1 1 also find e connections are required in Tree Farm 2. Where the addition of a walking or cycling distan transit stop, school, s park by 400 feet and available routes. hop by a connection will reduce the ce to an existing or planned ping center, or neighborhood t least 50 percent over other For schools or commercial uses where the addition of a connection will reduce the walking or cycling distance to an existing or planned transit stop, school, shopping center, or neighborhood park by 200 feet or by at least50 percent over other available routes° For cul de sacs or dead end streets where a street connection is determined by the Hearings Officer or Planning '''Director to be unfeasible or inappropriate provided that a bicycle or pedestrian connection Is not required where the logical extension of the road, that terminates in a cul de sac or dead end street to the nearest boundary of the development will not create a direct connection to an area, street, sidewalk or bikeway. The County may approve a cluster development without ' bicycle or pedestrian connections if connections interfere with wildlife passage through the subdivision, harm wildlife habitat or alter landscape approved for protection in its natural state. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds constr €cti of a bicycle and pedestrian connection to the nearby schools and beyond to the retail and park uses in NorthWest Crossing vouId require crossing the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to the southeast, which is not a part of the proposed Tree Farm development. For this reason, I found in my decision in Tree Farm 1 that a bicycle and pedestrian connection at the cul-de-sac end of Ridgeline Drive is unfeasible and inappropriate. I note that the proposed trail system in The Tree Faun will connect the cul-de-sac py Court in Tree Farm 5 to Shevlin Park and to the DNF to the west. at the western end of Cano 1•l., A Conditions of Approval Agreement for the duster development shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final,, plat for the development. FININGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to record' a Conditions of Approval Agreement in accordance with this paragraph. For the forego€ng reasons, the Heanngs Officer has failed to demonstrate Tree Farm 2 will; satisfy ail applicable conditional use criteria in Chapter 18.128 . D. Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code, the Bend Urban Oro th Boundary Zo Ordinance p n g 1ree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 62 of 114 UA N 0 ZONE STANDARDS Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone _ UAR 10 o Section 19.1 ,010, P€ rpose To serve as a holding category and to provide opportunity for tax different als as urban growth takes place elsewhere in the planning, area, and to be preserved as long as possible as useful open space until needed for orderly growth. FINDINGS: Opponent Christine Herrick argues the applicant's proposal conflicts with the purpose statement for the UAR-10 Zone which' she believes requires the portion of The Tree Farm located in the UAP -10 Zone to remain in open space "as long as possible." The Hearings Officer disagrees, Zoning ordinance purpose statements do not establish approval criteria for quasi-judicial and use applications where such statements are aspirational, or where nothing in the text or context of the purpose statement suggests it was intended to establish approval criteria. SEIU v. City of Happy Valley, 58 Or LUBA 261 (2009). The Hearings Officer finds there €s nothing in this purpose statement that suggests it was intended to apply to quasi-judicial and use applications or to prohibit uses permitted outright or conditionally in the UAR 1 O Zone. b. Section 19.12.030, Conditional Uses FINDINGS: Opponents Christine Herrick and Ruth Zdanav idz argue that conditional uses in the UAP. -10 Zone "must comply with the Statewide Goals for and use," They are mistaken, The statewide goals are implernnted through the county's acknowledged comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, and therefore are not directly applicable to the applicant's quasi-judicial land use application., The con d following conditional uses may be permitted subject to a itional use permit and the provisions of DCC 19.78 and 19.100. Planned unit develop: lent subj act to DCC 19.104. FINDINGS: The applicant requests conditional rise approval to establish' Tree Section 19 04,040 defines PUD as: Farrn 2 as a PUD, * the development of an area of land as a single entity for a number of units or a number of uses, according to a plan which does not necessarily correspond in lot size, bulk or type of dwelling, density, lot coverage or required open space to the standard regulations otherwise required by DCC Tittle 1. The applicant proposes that Tree Farm 2 be approved as a stand-alone subdivision with ten 2 - acre residential lots, an 82.8 -acre open space tract, segments of private roads and multi -use paths, However, the Hearings Officer has found that none of the individual Tree Fara cluster'? Ds can function independently of one another. And the applicant proposes that Tree Farm 2 be developed >concurrent with Tree Farms 1 and 3 to assure access to Skyliiners Road for all residential bots in those PUDs. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, the applicant has Tree Par; 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247; -14 -060246 -TP Page 63 of 114 requested approval to deviate in several respects from the standard regulations for subdivisions For these reasons, I find Tree Farm 2 meets the definition of PUD and therefore is permitted conditionally in the UAP -10 Zone, And as discussed in the findings. above, I have found that in order to conduct a meaningful review of Tree Farm 2> as a whole, I will apply the provisions of Title 19 to the entire Tree Farm 2 and not just to those portions of the development zoned UAR- 10. Compliance, with the provisions of Chapters 19 76, 19,100, and 19A 04 is addressed in the findings below o Section No str 19,1' 2 040 build etu ra Heig ht R egtilatic)ns ing or structure shall be Hy altered to exceed 30 feet hereafter in height. cted, enlarged FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be, required as a condition of a to assure all dwellings in Tree Farre 2 meet the 0 -foot height limitation. l find building he be verifiedat the time of building plan review, permitting and inspections. d. Section 19,1 .,050, Lot Requirements The follow A. ng requirements s Lot Area E ach lot hal shat' be observed: have a r pprvl ight will ni uni area oof 10 acres B. Lot Width. Each lot shall have a minium average width of 300 feet with a minimum street frontage of 150 feet Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minim urrt of 50 feet from the existing street right of way line or the ultimate street right of way as adopted on the Comprehensive Plan or Official Map, except that any loot of record less than one acre in size lawfully created prior to (effect date of this tlfle) shall have a minium front yard of 30 feet. Sid e Yard. There shal E. Rear Yard. There s l>be a minimax hall''b e a miriimum Olde yard of 10 feet rear yard of 60 feet. Solar Setback, The solar setback shall DCC 16,86..210. be as precri bed in FINDING: The applicant proposes exceptions to minimum lot area, average lot width, and street frontage requirements pursuant to the PUD standards in Chapter 19.104. As discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has found the requested exceptions are justified by the benefits provided by The Tree Fare cluster/PUDs.. For th foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer fends the af3F iicaant s prof .osa1 ,:tidies all applicable standards in the UAR-10 Zone in Chapter 19.12. SITE PLAN REVIEW Chapter 16,76 Site Plan Review Tree Farm 2, 247-14- 3244 CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page64of114 Fl N D s ection 19 76.070. Site Pia n Criteria ING : As set forth above, Section 19.12 0 0 states PU Approval of a site pia Ds are subject to site plan revie n shall be based on the fol lowin g criteri A. Safety and Privacy. Residential site plans shall be, designed to provide a safe living environment while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transitions from public to private spaces. FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorpor:•.ated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant failed to demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed clusterlP'l.lD considering wildfire risk. For those sa€€e reasons, I find the applicant has not demonstrated the site plan for Tree Farm 2 is designed to provide a safe living environment. Therefore, I find Tree Farm 2 does not satisfy this criterion. B. Special Needs of DisabledWhen deemed appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs, drop curbs and disabled parking stalls. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states the paved bicycle/pedestrian path along Tree Farm Drive and the neighborhood trails within The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of the Americans with ''Disabilities Act (ADA) to the extent practicable and where required to ensure adequate access. The Hearings Officer understands these private paths may not be inspected for ADA compliance, However, I arse aware ADA compliance for dwellings' and accesson structures will be, determined and verified at the time of building permit plan review, permitting and inspections.. For these reasons. 1 find Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion. C. Preservation of Natural Landscape. The landscape, and existing grade shall be preserved to the maximum practical degree, considering development constraints and suitability'' of the landscape or grade to serve the applicant's functions. Preserved trees and, shrubs shall be protected during construction. FINDINGS: : The applicant proposes to preserve 82.8 acres of the 104,2 acre Tree Farm '2 as open space with the only development therein being, a small segment of Tree Farm Drive. The tentative pans for Tree Farms 1 through 5 show most of the road rights-of-way have been proposed in locations and alignments where they will follow existing topography The tentative plans also show the residential lots will be located primarily atop the central ridge running through The Tree Farm or on other relatively level areas. The dwellings in Tree Farm 2 would be Blustered near the northern border of the cluster/PUD on relatively level ground. Finally, the applicant proposes to preserve existing vegetation within the open space tract except where removal or modification of vegetation is required as part of fire fuels treatment or to improve wildlife habitat. ''However, as discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found neither the applicant's wildfire plan nor MP adequately addresses the need for, or impacts from, more aggressive fire fuel treatments that may be required on lots and in open space tracts Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -Cts, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page of 114 in order to reduce the fire hazards for ridetop dwellings such that Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD and is compatible with surrounding properties. Therefore, find the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this criterion. D. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation and Parking. The location and number of pouts of access to the site, the interior circulation patterns, ,;designs of parking areas and the separation between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles shall be designed' to promote safety and avoid congestion on adjacent streets. FINDINGS: The Tree, Fara tentative plans show the development will have access from Skyliners>;Road via Tree Farm Drive, improved with a 26 -foot -wide paved surface, and with a system of public and private roads connecting with Tree Farm Drive and developed with a 20 - foot -wide paved surface and parallel eight- and ten -foot wide paved multi -use paths. The applicant also proposes a gated temporary secondary access road from the southern end of Sage Steppe Drive south across the adjoining '"Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive. This temporary access will be in place until the adjoining Miller Tree Farm property is developed with paved streets to which Sage Steppe Drive can, connect. In addition, Sage Steppe Drive would be stubbed at the northern boundary of Tree Farm 1 to provide a future road connection to the vacant Rio Lobo property to the north. Parking would be prohibited on Tree Farm roads, and all off-street parking would be provided on the residential lots. The Hearings ''Officer finds the proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan will provide separation between vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, will promote safety, and wi avoid road congestion, therefore satisfying this criterion. FINDINGS: The applicant's described structures or uses this criterion is not applicable. Buffering and Screening. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires and the 'ike), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designer, located, buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts to thesite and neighboring properties. burden of proof and tentative plans indicate none of the above- is proposed for Tree Farm 2. Therefore, the Hearings Officer' finds, F. Utilities. AH utility insta allowed, shall be located s0 as to on the site and neighboring properties.. ations above ground, if such, are minimize adverse impacts FINDINGS: The record indicates, and the Hearings Officer's site visit observations confirmed, that there is an existing above -ground electrical facility running east -west near the Tree Farm's southern boundary and serving the city's Outback Water Facility. However, the tentative plan shows no part of that facility is located'' in Tree Farm 2. The applicant proposes that all new utilities be located underground. Therefore. 1 find this criterion is not appiicable to Tree Farm 2. G. Public Faci burden on system. Ries. The proposed use shall not be an undue blic facilities, such as the street, sewer or water pu 2, 2. it 14 -000244 -Cit, 247-14-LS00245 TP Page 6 of 114 FINDINGS: Streets. As discussed'''' in the findings above, the applicant's traffic study, in€cIu as Exhibit > "Ft' to the applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2. shows generated by The Tree Farm will not cause affected transportation facilli acceptable levels of service, The road department, the cou city's public works department did not recommendim facilities to accommodate Tree Farm traffic. ded in the record traffic predicted to be ties to operate below nty's transportation pi provernents to existing anner, and the transportation Sewage Disposal. The Tree Fan will be served by individual on-site septic disposal systems No connection to the city's sewer system is proposed. The applicant submitted, as Exhibit "" to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof a septic suitability study demonstrating soils on The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 are suitable for on-site sewage disposal, Water. The applicant proposes to provide domestic water to The Tree Farm residential lots through one of three sources: (1) extension of and connection to the City of Bend water system; (2) extension of and connection to Avian Water Company's, system; or (3) use of one or more wells on The Tree Farm and/or the adjacent Miller Tree Fara property. The applicant expressed a preference for city water service, and requested that the city perform a water analysis for serving The Tree Farm with city water. That analysis and supporting documents, dated August' 1, 2014, are included in the regard as Exhibit "G' to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof. In addition, two diagrams labeled "Preliminary Utility Plan" are included in Exhibit "" to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof. One of those diagrams is a version of the diagram included in Exhibit "G" and the other is a copy of the applicant's submitted 'Prel'iminary Utility Pan:'" The city's water analysis states the Tree Farm can be served by city' water facilities with a development agreement between the applicant and the city. The analysis states the nearest city water infrastructure is the Outback Water Facility located near the southwest corner of The Tree Farm and described by the applicant as "the primary storage and treatment area for the City's surface water and (that} also contains several' of the City's groundwater wells,' The analysis states water for The Tree Farm could be provided from the Outback, facility through a new connection and the installation of 12 -inch and 24 -inch diameter water mains within The Tree Far€n. However, the analysis cautioned that no such water connection could be made until the city's "Outback Membrane Water Facility" is constructed and operational,, and until the Bend City Council approves extension of city water service outside the Bend UGB through a public process. '29 The city's water system analys€s, states city standard pressure and flow for domestic use. s require the folio ving minimum water • 40 psi (pounds per square inch) pressure at peak period O 20''psi residual pressure; and • 2,000 gpm (gallons per minute) for fire flow. S; The color -coded' diagrams included in Exhibits "E" and "G to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof show that most of the water mains in The Tree Farm could be 24 inches in diameter, but that the mains would need to be 12 inches in diameter along the upper segment of Golden Mantle Loop, and along the segment of Ridgeline Drive east of Sage Steppe Drive, to provide adequate pressure in those areas. The diagrams show all Tree Farm lots would have at least 2,000 gpm for fire flow, but only the ten lots in Tree >Farm 1 would have water pressure meeting the 40 psi 29 The Hearings Officer understands this facility was under construction when this record closed; Tree Fan , 247-14-000244 247-14-0 245 TP Page 67 of 114 Th oth mnrr and 20 psi minimum standards. T water pressure falling below those er Tree Farmlots would have peak period and residual um standards. The city's water analysis states the city cannot guarantee a specific water pressure or flow, and that am,water service agreement between the city and the applicant must clearly Identify areas of substandard pressure and/or fire flow. The analysis goes on to state that if the property owner finds the available water pressure unsatisfactory, the property owner may install a pressure pump on the downstream side of the city's water meter, at the property owner's own expense and responsibility. The applicant's Preliminary Utility Plan in Exhibit "E" includes a notation that 'all homes incl, services with booster pumps." The Hearings understands this note to mean the applicant proposes that water service for each residential lot' will have a pump boosting pressure to achieve the mininnum psi established in the city's minimum standards. Based on the city's water analysis. the Hearings Officer finds that if water is provided to The Tree Farm and Tree er€€ 2 through extension of city water service in the manner proposed by the applicant and with all necessary city approvals, The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 will not place an undue burden on the city's water facilities. In his December 1 1 2014 letter on behalf of LandWatch, Mr, Dewey stated: "Given the uncertaintir as to the eventual source of water and whether all of the possible sources will have adequate pressure, the Applicant should be required to provide more specific information and the public be given the opportunity to comment on it'3 The Hearings Officer finds the applicant has submitted sufficient information about water service from the City of Bend for me to find that providing water to Tree Farm 2will not place an undue burden on the city's water facilities. The applicant did not submit a will -set -ye letter from Avion Water Company In a memorandum dated December 29, 2014, the applicant's engineer Niall Boggs from WH Pacific stated Avion or another private water purveyor would provide water to The Tree Farm through the city's existing 14 inch or 16 inch water lines. However, Mr. Boggs stated this system may require a "booster pump station" to provide sufficient water pressure for all Tree Farrn lots. And he noted use of the city's water system by a private water purveyor Ilke Avian would require an agreement with the city. The applicant submitted well logs, for surrounding properties, included as Exhibit "M" to the burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 that demonstrate groundwater is available in the surrounding area. Mr. Boggs stated in his memorandum that individual wells for Tree >.Farm lots would require the lot developer or owner' to provide the pipe, power and pump. However, Mr. Boggs did not analyze or determine whether such wells could produce sufficient water pressure or fire flow to meet the minimum standards identified by the city,3° Finally, Mr. Boggs noted Miller Tree Farm has a quasi -municipal water right for 350 gpm for property including The Tree Farm. He, stated that in order for the applicant to use this ter right to create an operational water system for The Tree Farr, water from the well or wells would have to be pumped to a reservoir site at the highest point on The Tree Farm property near proposed Lot 50 in Tree Farm 5. Water would then go through a community booster pump station before being distributed to residential lots. Mr, Boggs stated such a system would be "feasible but would require significantly more capital,' The record indicates the 37 lots In The Highlands at B served by individual on --site wells: roken Top south across Skyliners Road are Tree Farr i 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247-14 00245 -TP Page 68 of 114 investment. He did not state whethe pressure and fire flow for the residentia this quas lots, unicipal system could produce sufficient For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings'Officer finds that if the applicant elects, or is required to, provide water to The Tree Farm through means other than extension of city water service; the <applicant will be required as a condition of approval for Tree Farm 2, and before submitting for approval the final plat for any Tree Farm development, to provide to the planning Division water analysis performed by a registered professional engineer demonstrating that water service from the alternative domestic water source will provide at each residential lot water pressure of at east 40 psi during peak demand periods, 20 psi residual pressure, and 2000 gpm for fire flow. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described a the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies'' this criterion. b, Section 19.7 .080 Req aired Minimum Standards A. Minium Landscaping Stands to site plan approval shat standards for landscaping: FINDINGS: The Hea Subsection (1) is not a industrial use, rds. All developrnen I meet the followin 9 love, subject irumum 1. A minimum of 15 percent of the area of a project shall be landscaped for multifamily, cornrnercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval and the following requirements , r rings Officer finds the 15 -percent landscape area requirement in pplicable to Tree Farm 2 because it is not a multi -family, commercial or Street Trees. The placement, spacing and pruning of street trees shall be as follows, although the Planning Director or Hearings Body may adjust the placement standard for special site conditions FINDING: The applicant requests an exception to the street tree 19.104. As discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer justified by the benefits provided by The Tree Farm. F d N DINGS: The Hearings Officer oes not include multi -family, car Areas of commerce vehicle maneuveriin be landscaped and s al an 9 req uirernent under Chapter found this exception is d industrial zones used for , parking, loading or storage shall Greened as follows:. -ids this criterion is not applicable to Tree Fars ercial or industria uses Required ladscap€ng shall maintained, d, 2 because it continuously 5 Vegetation planted in accordance with an approved site plan shall be maintained by the owner, any heir or Tr :e Farm 2, 247-14.000244--C1J, 245 -TP Page 69 of 114 assignee. plants or trees tha be replaced and maintained. t die or are damaged shall FINDINGS: The applicant has requested an exception to these requirements under Chapter 19.104. As discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has found this exception justified by the benefits provided by The Tree Farm. B. Shared Areas. Usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided for the shared use of residents and they guests in any apartment residential development as follows . . FINDlN: The Hearing s not an apartment resid s Officer finds this crite ential development, cion is not a p plica ble to Tree Farm 2 because it C, Storage, Areas shall be provided in residential developments for the storage of articles such as bicycjles, barbecues, luggage, outdoor furniture, etc. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof did not address this criterion. However, the Hearings Officer finds adequate storage for the listed items could, be provided on each residential lot within each d refling, garage, and/or accessory structure, Therefore, 1 find the applicant's proposal satisfies, this criterion, D. Dra nage. Surface drainage shall be contained on site. FINDINGS: The applicant's submitted site plan and burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 show surface water drainage would be contained on site through use of vegetated swals, roadside ditches, culverts, and natural drainage ways. Specifically, the applicant states runoff would shed to vegetated swales with 3:1 slopes for on-site infiltration, or runoff would enter a natural drainage way via a roadside ditch and culvert. Because of the site's topography, natural drainage patterns on The Tree Farm generally are toward Tumalo Creek to the west and to the undeveloped open space to he east. However, the applicant's burden of proof states none of the runoff from impervious areas such as roads and driveways will create any additional drainage contributions to Tumalo Creek as no surface water will be disposed of off-site. Finally, the applicant has proposed that if hydrological calculations determine additional runoff storage is needed, the applicant will construct a catch basin near the main entry to The Tree Farre at Skyliners Road, which appears to be the lowest point in The Tree Farm. The Hearings Officer found in my decision in Tree Farm 1 that the applicant will be required as a condition of approval, and prior to submitting the final plat for any part of The Tree Farm for approval, to submit to the Planning Division a statement from a registered professional engineer stating'' whether an additional runoff storage basin is necessary, and if such a facility is necessary, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval for Tree Farm 1 to show it on the final plat for Tree Farm 1, and to construct it as part of Tree Farm 1 or in such other location as determined by a registered professional engineer. Bicycle Parking. The development shal'l provide the number and type of bicycle parking facility as required in DCC 19.80,080 and 19.80.090. The location and design of bicycle`- parking facilities shall be shown on the site plan. Tree Paras 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 --TP Page 70 of 11 4 FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 is not required to provide bicycle parking because it is not, subject to Sections 19.80.080 and 19.8O,O90. That is because off-street bicycle parking is not required for single-family dwellings, and Tree, Farm 2 will not include any of the uses for which off-street bicycle parking is required Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new office parks and commercial; developments through the clustering of buildings,, construction of hard surface pedestrian walkway, and similar techniques. VValkways shall connect b and from building entrances to pu ned transit stops. On site wal uilding entre nces to one another bile street and existing or kways shall connect with plan gyral kways, sidewalks,, bikeways, an bicycle connection on adjacent for commercial,, multifamily, instit d other pedestrian or properties planned or used utional or park use. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable to Tree Farm 2 because it is not a new office park or commercial development. G. Public Transit Orientation. New retail, office and institutional' buildings on parcels within 600 feet of existing or planned' transit routes shall provide preferential access to transit through the following measures . . FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farm 2 beca is not a new retail, office or institutional use. e For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies, or with imposition of the conditions of approve l described above will satisfy, all applicable site plan requirer encs under Title I. URBAN A REA CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Chapter 19.100, C onditional Use Permits Section 19,100.00, General Conditional Use Criteria A conditional use permit may be granted only upon findings by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposal meets all of the criteria in DCC 19.100.00, as well as all other applicable criteria contained in DCC Title 19. The general criteria are: A. That the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use are such that it will have minimal adverse impact on the, property value, livability and permissible development of the surrounding area.,, Consideration shall be given to compatibility in terms of scale, coverage and density with the alteration of traffic Tree Far rti . 247-14- 244-C , 247-14-r 00245 -TP Page 71 of 114 FIN DI N GS: patterns and the capacity of surrounding streets a other relevant impact of the proposed use< nd to a ny Location. Tree ''Farm 2 is located north of Skyliners Road on property zoned UAR-10 and RR - 10 and located approximately 3,500 feet west of the Bend UGB and approximately 2,500 feet east of Shevlin Park. Size. Tree Farm 2 is 104.2 acres in size and is west of Tree Farm 1 which is the most eastern clusterlPUD in the 533 acre Tree Farm development, Tree Farm 2 would be developed with 20 acres of residential lots, 82.8 acres of open space, and 1.4 acres of road right-of-way; Operating Characteristics.; The proposed ten residential lots in Tree Farm 2 would' be clustered near the northern border of the development on higher, relatively level ground. All ots wou d have frontage on Rid eline''D€rive, a private road developed to the county's private local road standards. Ridgeline Drive would extend west and southwest into Tree Farm 3, and would' connect in Tree Farm 3 with Tree Farm Drive, the primary subdivision road which intersects with Skyliners Road at the southern property boundary. The applicant proposes to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to provide access from Skyline's Road for all lots in those developments. The tentative plans show the private roads will be constructed primarily on the central ridge, thus minimizing steep road cuts and grades. A gated temporary emergency access road would extend from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive in Tree Farm 1 south across the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive in the Bend 'UGB. This secondary access would be in place until the adjacent Miller Tree Fara property is developed with paved streets to which Sage Steppe Drive could connect. Sage Steppe Drive would be stubbed at the northern boundary of Tree Farm 1 to provide a future road connection to the adjacent Rio Lobo property to the north. The applicant proposes that each dwelling would be constructed within a designated building envelope, would be served by an on-site septic system, and would receive water from the City of Bend, Avian Water Company, or one or more groundwater wells. The majority of Tree Farren 2 (82.5 acres) would be set aside as permanent open space. The public would have access >s o this open space through a combination of a permanent trail easement on the primary tails within The Tree Famri and a license granted by The Tree Farm HOA for use of trails within he residential lot areas in Tree Farm 2. The path and trail system would connect with trails in Shevlin Park and the DNF to the west and southwest, Compatibility. This criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate Tree harm 2 will have "minimal adverse impact on the property value, livability and perr nissible development of the surrounding area" considering "scale, coverage and density," "alteration of traffic patterns and the capacity of surrounding streets," and "any other relevant'' impact of the proposed use.' 1. Scale, Coverage and Density. The applicant has proposed five cluster;UDs for The Tree Earn) in order to provide a transition area between urban arid urban€.:.able lands to the east' and Shevlin Park and public and private forest lands to the west. The configuration of The Tree Farm would cluster most of the dwellings in the UAR-10 Zone, limit residential development to 100 acres (fifty 2 -acre lots), and preserve almost 423 acres in permanent open space. The overall density of The Tree Farm would be one lot per 10 acres, similar to The I--lighlands at Broken Top PUD located across Skyliners Road. The applicant proposes that each residential Tree Farm 2, 247-14-0£ 244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 72 of 11 4 lot would have a designated building envelope in which the dwellings would be built, with the rest of the residential lots retained in native vegetation. Opponent Rio Lobo asserts the proposed configuration of The Tree Farm will negatively impact future development of it, adjacent 376 acre UAR-10 O zoned parcel' because it Will not provide a public road from Rio <Lobo's southern boundary to Skylinejrs Road to facilitate through traffic from Rio Lobo's propert ; and because most Tree Fara dwellings would be clustered along or near Rio Lobo's southern boundary with only one road connection provided along that boundary. As discussed in the findings below,, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant is not required to dedicate a public road between the Rio Lobo property and Skyliners Road to facilitate through traffic for Rio Lobo, and The Tree Farm configuration will not preclude> Rio Lobo from developing its property at urban or urban reserve densities in the future. LandWatch and other opponents argue the site for Tree Farm 2 is not suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering impacts on wildlife habitat and the risk of wildfire. As discussed in the findings above, ;,incorporated, by reference herein, the, Hearings Officer has found the applicant' has failed to demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering wildlife habitat and wildfire risk. For the same reasons, l find the applicant has not demonstrated The Tree Farm will be compatible with Sheviin Park and the public and private forest lands to the west considering wildfire risk, and therefore does not satisfy this criterion 2. Traffic Patterns and Street Capacity. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found from the applicant's traffic study, and the lack of any recommendations from the city or county for additional right-of-way or road improvements, that traffic generated from the entire Tree Farm development will not cause affected transportation facilities to operate below acceptable levels of service, and the Tree Farm 2 site will be suitable for the proposed cluster/PUl considering the adequacy of transportation access. For the same reasons, l find Tree Farm 2 will have minimal if any adverse impacts on property value, livability' and permissible development of the surrounding area considering traffic patterns and street capacity. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion. B. That the site planning of the proposed use will, as far as reasonably possible, ,provide an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment to the highestdegree consitent,with the nature of the use and the given setting. FINDINGS. The design of Tree Fara 2 includes two -acre residential lots clustered mostly in the northern part of the property and well away from Skyliners Road. The residential lots would be located atop the central ridge, with all of the remaining acreage, except the road rights-of-way, permanently preserved as open space. Existing vegetation in the open space tracts and on the residential lots outside of the designated building envelopes would be retained except where removal is necessary for fire fuel treatments or to enhance wildlife habitat. The applicant proposes to create a system of paved multi -use paths and recreational trails within The Tree Farm that would connect with the existing trail network in Shevlin Park and the DNF to the west. The cluster/PUD would have a system of public and private roads that generally would follow the existing terrain to minimize road cuts and steep slopes. The road system would include a gated temporary emergency access road from Tree Farm 1 south to Skyliners Road through the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property. The Hearings Officer finds the site planning;,; for Tree Farm 2 wil pleasing environment for cluster'l" UD residents and for the general provide an aesthetically public. Based on my site Tree Fara 2, 247'-14-000244 CU, 247'-14-i 00245 TP Page 73 of 114 visitobservations, I filed the Tree Farm 2 dwellings ,ould be substantia y screened from kyliners''Road by existing topography and vegetation, Most of Tree Farm 2 would remain in a natural state. Roads and trails would provide a functional circulation system for residents, and guests, and the property's proximity to the Bend UGB world allow easy access to schools and other urban uses, Finally, I have found that with imposition of conditions of approval described above, all necessary facilities and services will be available to residential''' lots in Tree Farr a 2. For the fo reoing reasons, the H FINING: The H permitted use earings Office find s Tree Farm C, That if the use is perm substantia l» reason for locating t only conditionally alloed,as op permfted outright, earing 2 satisfies this criterion. fitted outright in another zone, there is he use, in an area where it is Officer find That DCC s no other zone al l osed to an area wh ow a resid ere it is ential PUD as an outrij ht the proposed use will be consistent with the purposes of Title 19, the Comprehensive plan, Statewide Goals and any other applicable statutes, ordinances or policies, FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the purpose statement for the UAR-10 Zone in Section 19.12,010 does not constitute an ;,approval criterion for quasi-judicial land use applications. Section 19.0€4.0€2€0 identifies several purposes for Title 19, including providing the principle means for ting the Bend Area General Plan, and providing a means of classifying, designating and regulating development in the Bend urban area, The purpose statement uses a number of aspirational terms, such as to "encourage," "conserve" and "facilitate" various goals for the Bend urban area, For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the Title 19 purpose statement does not contain applicable approval criteria for Tree Farre 2. Compliance with the applicable administrative rules is addressed in the findings above. Compliance with applicable comprehensive plan policies is addressed in the findings below. have found the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals are not>directly applicable to the, applicant's proposal, Finally, compliance with Title 19 is the findings above and below: For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing the conditions of approval described approval criteria. PUD STANDARDS 4. Cha pter 19,104, P fficer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies, or with im above will satisfy, all UAR-1 0 Zone condi Tanned "Unit "Developrne Section 19.1€14.010, Purpose nt position of tional rrse The purpose of penned :.€tut development approve l is to allow and to make possible greater variety and diversification in the relatlonhips between buildings and open spaces in planned building groups, while ensuring compliance with the purposes and objectives of he various zoning regulations and the intent and purpose of DCC Title, 19. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 74 of 114 FINDINGS: As discussed above, unless the text or context of a purpose statement indicates otherwise, such statement does not establish approval standards for quasi-judicial'' land ''use, applications. The Hearings Officer finds use of the terms;, ':make possible," ensuring; compliance," and "intent and purpose" Indicates the PUD purpose statement is aspirational and therefore does not establish approval criteria for Tree Farm 2. Section 19.104.040, Minimum Size for Planned Unit Developments No application shall be accepted for an area a f less than five acres n any. R zone, or for an area of less than four acres in any other zone. FINDINGS: Each Tree Farm development including Tree Farm 2 is at east 1'04 acres in size; therefore satisfyi,rig this standard. Section 19.104.07 , Standards for . pprova ll granting approval for plan Body or Planning Director shat aged''' unit deve I be guided by 1pment, the the following: H earng A. Whether applicant has, through ''investigation, planning and programming, demonstrated the soundness of the proposal and an ability to carry out the project as proposed, and whether the construction shall begin within sax months of the conclusion of any necessary action by the County, or within such lunger period of time as may be established by the Hearings Body or Planning Director. FIND NGS: The Hearings Officer finds that read in the context of the rest of this paragraph, the term `"soundness" connotes the feasibility — financial and, physical — of developing The Tree Farm and Tee Fara 2. The applicant's burden of proof states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the applicant has demonstrated the soundness of its proposal through its tentative plans,, detailed narrative, will -serve letters from utilities and tlhe City of Bend, the city's water analysis,, the septic feasibility analysis, and the background of the development team. The team includes several experienced developers such as Brooks Resources, and Skyliher TD'S, LLC, whose members include Michael Tennant, Ron White, and Kirk Schueler, each with many years of successful local'' development experience. I am aware Brooks and Tennant together developed l` o€thWest Crossing. The burden of proof states the applicant's intent is to initiate development of Tree Farms 1 2 and 3 immediately upon gaining land use approval, I find the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to begin construction of Tree Farm 2>.within >six months of the date this decision becomes final, or such longer period of time as the Planning Director may allow. For these reasons, and with imposition of this condition of approval, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. Whether the proposal conforms with the general pians of the County in terms of location and general development standards. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 is proposed for land designated and zoned for residential development and in which residential cluster/PUDs are permitted conditionally. In Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -Cts, 247 -14 -000245 -TI Pa 7- addition, as d applicab c om iscussed in the findings below, I have found Tree Farre 2 is consistent with e plan policies Therefore, I find Tree Farm 2 conforms to the city and county prehensive plans, C. Whether the project will accrue benefits to the County and the general public In teas of need, convenience, service and, appearance sufficient to justify any necessary exceptions to the regulations of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. FINDINGS: The applicant has requested exceptions to the following standards applicable to The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2: 1, two -acre residential lot size rather than the five-acreminimum lot size under Section 18.60.060'' or theten-acre minimum lot size under Section 19.12.050: 2, thirty-foot front yard setbacks rather than the fifty -foot front' yard setback 19.12.050; 3. less than fifty feet, of street frontage fo 17.36.180; Lot 1 ''in Tree F 4. reduction in the milnimum average lot width and 19.12.050 for Lot 1 in Tree Farm 1; 5. no street trees ther than street trees as required r ontag unc 1 as require e standard d er Section by S s and by Section 19,76,0 0(A)(2); 6. no introduced, landscaping or maintenance thereof; 7. eight -foot -id required by Sect e bicycle and pedestrian m ion 19'.104.080 (F); and ulti-use paths rath 8, no road/bicycle path connections at 400-foot`'intervals alon adjacent Rio Lobo and Miller Tree Farm properties. g r than ten tie er Section wide paths as The Tree Farm's borders with the' The applicant argues The Tree Farm and Tree Fara 2 will accrue the following benefits to the county and the general public: 1. creating two -acre residential lots rather than five- or ten -acre ots and clustering lots on 100 acres of The Tree Fare, and 20 acres of Tree Farm 2; 2. preserving over 82 acres of open space in Tree Farm 2 and 423 acres of open space in The Tree Farm as a whole;' 3, making the PUD roads accessible to the public through public access easements; 4. creating a network of trails accessible to the public through public access easements and licenses, and linking The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 to the trail systems in Sheviin Park and the DNF; 5. minimizing impacts to habitat in the Tumalo winter deer range through small, clustered residential lots, large open space tracts, preservation of most native vegetation, and reduction in fire fuels; Tree Farr? 2, 247-14-000244-C , 247 -14 -000245 -TP Peg 76 0 14 6. Th providing a do e Tree Farm; esti c water system for dwellings and 7. designing and managin reduce wildfire risk, The Tree Fa rm a nd Tree F 8. configuring The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 to esta area between urban and urbanizable lands to the ea public and private forest lands to the west, and 9. providing 50 new d Bend. elling to address the d em and re hydrants to aid fire protection on m 2 as a blish a st and "Fire Wise C unity" tra permanent low-density transition Shevlin Park and the extensive r new horesites on the west side of LandWatch again argues the analysis required by this section should not compare the applicant's proposed cluster/PUD with, alternative subdivision configurations such as a traditional subdivision >.with 10 -acre lots and dwellings spread throughout the 533 acre properly., In his December 11; 2014 letter, Paul Dewey states: 'There are apparently only five >lots, so the current alternative would be five houses. Though the zoning allows a house on a 10 -acre parcel, there is no basis to conclude that 50 10 -acre lots can be created here." (Underscored emphasis added.) As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found there are reasons to conclude a traditional subdivision with ten 10 -acre lots could be approved, on each of the five Tree Farm legal lots, including the fact that the county approved a very similar development, The Highlands at Broken Top, imrrnediately south of The Tree Farm with 37 mostly ten -acre lots and large open space areas on land zoned UAR-1O that is close to the DNF, In addition, traditional 10 -acre lot subdivisions in the UAR-10 and RR 10 Zones do not require conditional use approval;, but rather are subject only to the subdivision standards in Title 17. For this reason. I find there is nothing improper in comparing the proposed cluster/PVDs to the alternative of a traditional subdivision when weighing the benefits of the proposed Tree Farm development against the requested exceptions. The Hearings Officer finds many of the above-described benefits of developing the subject property with cluster/PUDs justify the requested exceptions. In particular, I find the requested two -acre lot sizes, the clustering of dwellings, the preservation of large swaths of open space in the WA Zone, and the creation of a trail system connecting with trails in Shevlin Park and the DNF will provide significant benefits to the community. For these reasons, l find Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion. D he then the project will satisfactorily take care of the traffic it generates by means of adequate off street parking, access points, additional street right of way and improvements and any other traffic facilities required, FINDINGS: S: The Hearings Officer has found on the basis of the applicant's traffic study that the addition of traffic generated by The Tree Farm rill not exceed the capacity of affected transportation facilities, and no additional' right-of-way, or improvements are required.''I also have fo nd the intersection of Skylinerss Road and Tree Farm Drive will have adequate sight distance Tree Farrrn 2 , 24 14 -000244 -CU, 247-14-0002 --TP Page 77 of 114 in both directions, and that the proposed gated secondary access road will provide an appropriate second point of access for evacuations and emergency vehicles. No on -street' parking will be allowed; all off-street parking Will be accommodated on each ho€mesite. For these reasons, l find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. E Whether the proj developments and the area. ect will willl be compatible with adjacent not adversely affect the character of FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has addressed virtually identical criteria in the findings above under Section 1'>>8.128.015(3)(B). Based on those findings, Incorporated by reference herein, l find Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion with respect compatibility with the rural character of the area, and with adjacent property to the north, east and south. However, i have found that in the absence of an adequate wildfire plan the applicant has not demonstrated The Tree Farm or Tree Fara 2 will be compatible with Bhevlin Park and forest lands to the west. Fl N DING Whether the project will satisfactorily take care of sewer and water needs consistent with the Bend Urban Area General Pan, Sewer. The applicant proposes that each dwelling be served by an on-site septic system, and provided as Exhibit "F" to the Tree Farm 3 burden of proof a Preliminary Soils and Percolation Investigation prepared by FBI Testing and Inspection based on the analysis of 27 test pits and sample percolation testing. The study found the soils on The Tree Farre and Tree Farm 2 are sufficiently deep (18-60 inches) and well -drained to accommodate either standard or capping -fill,' on-site septic systems on each of The Tree Farm lots. The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant' will be required to obtain from the county an approved septic site evaluation for each Tree Farm 2 lot., Water. The applicant proposes to provide domestic water to each dwel'ling in The Tree Farm through one of three methods: (1) extending and connecting to city water service, (2) extending and connecting to service from Avion Water Company: or ( ) through one or more groundwater wells. The applicant provided as Exhibit "E" to its burden of proof a Wa er System Analysis, and as Exhibit' "G" to the burden of proof a will -serve letter from the City of Bend indicating the city's water system has sufficient capacity to serve the 50 homesites in The Tree Farm. The applicant' also submitted as Exhibit "M€" to its burden of proof well logs on surrounding properties showing water is available. The applicant's burden of proof also indicates there is an existing quasi- €nunicipal well on the adjacent Miller Tree Farm Property to the east. The applicant did not 'submit' a will` serve letter from Avian, Therefore, the Hearings Officer has found that if the applicant elects, or is required to, provide water to The Tree Farm through means other than extension of city water service, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval, and before submitting for approval the final: plat'' for any Tree Farre development, to provide to the Panning Division a water system analysis performed by a registered professional engineer and demonstrating water service from the alternative domestic water sources j will provide to each residential lot water pressure of at least 40 psi during peak demand periods and at least 20 psi residual pressure, as well as fire flow of at least 2,000 gpm. Tre Far r+; 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247-14- 0 245 -TP Page 78 0 114 Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 imposition of the condi€tions of approval described above will satisfy, this criterio satisfies, or with n. G. A planned unit development shall not be approved in any R zone if the housing density of the proposed development will result hi an intensity of land use greater than permitted by the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: The proposed density, of each Tree Farm development including Tree Farm 2`>will' not exceed one dwelling per ten acres, consistent with the general density permitted in the RR- 10 and UAR-10 Zones, therefore satisfying this criterion. d. ecti on 19.104.08 0, tand ards and Requi emen is Approval of "a request for a planned unit development is dependent upon the submission of an acceptable plan and satisfactory assurance that it will be carried out. The following minimum standards and rerfuirerrients shall apply: A dwelling use permitted in any zone may be planned unit development. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes ten resider' in the UAR-1 O Zone. Fl d tia l lots for sin e -family dwelling permitted in a s, use all owed A manufactured home may be permitted hi a planned development. However, manufactured home parks shat be allowed in any commercial or industrial zone. u nit not NDING: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable ''because the applicant,' oes not propose any manufactured homes or manufactured home parks C. Developments which either provide for or contemplate private streets and ways and common areas <which will be or are proposed to be maintained by the owners of units or lots within a development must organize and maintain an owners' association. The owners' association shall consist of all the owners of units or lots within the development and membership in the association must be required of all owners; adopt and record bylaws as provided by ORS 94.625; adopt bylaws that contain the provisions required by ORS 94.535; and have the power to create a Hen upon the unit or lot for services, abor or material lawfully chargeable as common expenses as provided in ORS 94.709, The association's power to create such a hen shall exist whether or not the property, is subject to the Oregon Planned Community Act (ORS 94,565 through 94°785,) FINDINGS: The Tree Farm will include private roads, a public road, multi -use paths, recreation' trails, and open space that will be owned and rnanaged by an HOA, The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 states an HOA will be established, organized and maintained pursuant to Farm 2, 247--• 4- 247.14-000245-T P Page 79 of 114 applicable provisions of ORS Chapter 94. As discussed in the findings above, the applicant submittedas Exhibit "LP to its burden of proof a sample set of CC&Rs and HOA bylaws that will serve as the template for The Tree Farm, CC&R's and HOA, bylaws. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to record CC&Rs and HOA bylaws prior to su.€bmittingg for approval the final plat for any Tree Farm development. l find that with imposition of this condition of approval, Tree Farm 2 will satisfy this criterion. D. If the property is not subject to the Unit Ownership Law, the association shall also create, by contract, the right to claim a lien upon any unit or lot, for services, labor or material chargeable as common expenses. This lien may be created by covenants between the association and the property owners and shall supplement the lien created by DCC 19.104.080(C) and require al owners of units or lots within the development to consent to and pay the reasonable value of services, abor or material expended by the County for common expenses where such county expenditures are made because the owners or the owners' association does not provide the necessary services, labor or material` for common expenses. FINDINGS: The appl ca Us burden of proof states the statutory references in this criterion no longer are correct because the Oregon Unit Ownership Law was substantially amended in 1977 and 1981 and renamed the "Oregon Condominium Act" (1977 Oregon Laws Chapter 484; 1981 Or ''Laws ''Chapter 841 ) The burden of proof notes that in 1989 the Oregon Condominium Act was relocated to ORS Chapter 100. Because of these changes, the applicant', argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 are not, subject to the Oregon Condominium Act (ORS 100.105 to 100.010), and therefore Section 19.104.080(C) and (D) are applicable to this development. E. Streets and roads in planned unit development designated developments shall be public roads and ways developed to county standards or be private roads of a minimum 14 feet, wide paved surface for one way traffic, min mum 20 feet wide paved surface for two way traffic, and parallel parking as permitted shall require rirrlrum additional eight feet of width for each side of parking. if pedestrian walkways or bikeways are included in the road, an additional five feet of pavement width on each side of the roadway shall be provided and striped to separate such use from motor vehicle traffic and parking. In addition to these requirements, the Panning Director or Hearings '''Body' may specify other requirements including, but not ''limited to, increased or decreased pavement width. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes that the private road in Tree Farm 2 will "be improved with 20 feet of pavement, and no on -street parking will be permitted. AR private Tree Farm roads Will`> be owned and maintained by The Tree Farrrn HOA but will be subject to public access easements, As discussed in the findings above, the applicant proposes to provide separate, pedestrian/bicycle paths according to the pan included in the record as Exhibit "0" to the, applicant's burden of proofThe pedestrian/bicycle path will be included in a 10 -foot -wide space Tree Fa12 , 247 4--000244-CU, 247-14-00024 Page 80 of a 14 on tlhe southern portion of Tree Farm Drive within Tree Farrn 3, and on separate nig foot -wide paved pathways running parallel to the rest of The Tree Farm roads. ht- and ten County staff and opponent Rio Lobo argue that under Section 1736 020( ) the applicant is required to dedicate and improve a public road, between the southern boundary of the Rio hobo property and Skyliners Road to provide for through >.traffic from future development ;.of the Rio Lobo property. However, as discussed in the findings below, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds that section does not require dedication of a public road in the circumstances presented here. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion; Fs Pedestrian walkways and bikeways shall be provided for adequate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and shall connect to any adjacent existing or planned sidewalks, bikeways, access corridors, or public trails. Off street pedestrian walkways and bikevways shall be at least 10 feet hi width to accommodate two way traffic and shall be constructed with Portland cement or asphaltic concrete ;.to county standards, except as varied by the provisions of DCC 19.104.080 or by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes a system of paved multi -use paths and natural surface rec eation trails throughout The Tree Farm and within Tree Farm 2 designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. According to the trail plan, Exhibit F'C' to the applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2, four types of trails are proposed: (1) main connection trails; (2) neighborhood trails; (3) proposed recreation/mountain bike trails, and (4) existing perimeter trails. The applicant proposes that the main connection trails would consist of ten -foot -wide paved multi -use paths paralleling Tree Farm Drive from its intersection with Skyliners Road to the point where the path splits to go west to Shevlin Park. The neighborhood trails would extend from that point east to the Golden Mantle Loop/Ridgeline Drive intersection and along the rest of the roads in The Tree Farm. These paths would be paved to a width of eight feet and would roughly parallel' the internal road network in The Tree Farm.31''' The applicant has requested an exception to the ten -foot width requirement for the lti-use neighborhood paths for the reason that they will serve a lower -use function for bicycle/pedestrian access within the hornesite area. The applicant notes there are only 50 lots in The Tree Farm, so traffic volume on the neighborhood paths would be low. In addition, the applicant suggests, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that most of the trail use near The Tree Farm homesites will be by residentsc. Finally, the applicant notes the proposed paths will be relatively flat and will have adequate sight distance to avoid the opposite -direction traffic conflicts that ten -foot wide paths are intended to address. As discussed above, l have, found this requested exception is justified by the significant community benefits from the proposed cluster/PUD. 31 The proposed recreation/mountain biking trails would be soft -surface trails developed to the mountain bike trail standards in Section 17.48.140( ). These trails would connect with the trail network in Sheviin Park. The applicant's burden of proof stet the existing perimeter trails within the western open space tracts are composed primarily of old roads that will be converted to trail use and will have native dirt surfaces. However, none of these trails i located in Tree Farr? 2. Tree Fara 2, 247.14 -000244 -CU, 247-14 -000245-Tib Pa etc 14 For the orep FIND N oing rea son s, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion,. G. All util accord GS: The applicant propose this criterion. ty facilities shall be installed u ance with County standards. that all new utilities will be insta led nderground and in nderground, satisfying The design of a planned' unit development p provide direct access for all units and lots to areas and facilities. Open space areas and faci such things as landscaped areas, natural areas, g and other recreational facilities, but do not inc, sidealks,'bikeways, access, corridors or trails. rojects shall open space Iities include olf courses, ude streets, FINDINGS: The tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows, each residential lot will have direct access to the proposed open areas throughout The Tree Farm via' the network of mufti -use paths and recreation trails, therefore satisfying this criterion. Fl N LSI A statement be provided must be submitted relative to the solar access to by the planned unit development NOS; The applicant's burden of proof includes the following statemen n sola raccess' "All of the lots within The Tree Far will he at least 2 acres in size ,pith setbacks on all lot lines of no less than 20 feet. This alone will provide ample solar access the lots. However, many of the open ridge top lots in Tree Farm 1, 2 and 3 will early ideal solar access., The Hearings Officer finds that the size and configuration of the ten Tree Farm 2 residential' lots will assure a dwelling can be sited on each lot in compliance with the required solar access standard ,under Sections 18.60.040(E)) and 19.12.050(F). For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies, or with imposition of the conditions of approval'' described above will satisfy, all applicable urban area P UD standards, E. Title 17 of th e Deschutes CountyCode, theSubdivision/Pa SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 1 Chapter 1716, Appro, Development Plans Se ctron 17.16 100, of Su bd Required ition Ord Trance iv on Tentative Plans and Master Findings for Approval A tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that the subdivision as proposed or modified will meet the ,requirements of this title and Titles 18 through 21 of this code, acrd is in compliance Tree Farm 2, 247-14-00 244 -CU, 247 -14_O€_€0245 -TP Page 82 of 114 with the comprehdr sive plan. Such findings sha 11 inc'1ude, but not be limited to, the following„ A. The subdivision contributes to orderly development and land use patterns in the area, and provides for the preservatlon of natural features and resources such as streams, lakes, natural vegetation, special terrain features, agricultural and forest ands and other nate ral resources. FINDING: Orderly Development and Land Use Patterns in the Area. The applicant proposes to develop Tree Farm 2 as cluster/PUDwith an overall density of one dwelling per ten acres as permitted in the RR -10 and LIAR -10 Zones. This density is the same as that in The Highlands at Broken Top PUD located south across Skyliners Road. However, LH -like that development with 37 ten -acre lots and dwellings scattered throughout the 390 -acre site, The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 would have 2 -acre residential lots clustered in the northern, part of the 533 -acre site in order to preserve large tracts of open space totaling nearly 80 percent of the entire property. Tree Farm dwellings would be sited within designated building envelopes, retaining the rest of the lots in native vegetation. As discussed above, the applicant intends The Tree Farm to provide a permanent transition between urban and'u€rbanizable land to the east and Shevlin Park and vast public and private forest lands to the west. The also applicant intends that The Tree Farm never' will be annexed into the Bend UGB or redeveloped. PUD roads would connect with Skyliners Road, and eventually with roads developed on the Rio Lobo property to the north and the Miller Tree Farm property to the east. As also discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found affected transportation facilities will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic generated by The Tree Farm. Each residential lot will be served by an on-site septic system and domestic water from the City of Bend, Avion, or groundwater wells. For these reasons, I' find Tree Farm 2 will contribute to orderly development and land use patterns in the area Preservation of Natural Features and Resources.Natural features and resources on Tree Farm 2 consist of topography, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat. As discussed above, the applicant has proposed cluster/PUDs in order to maximize open space and to preserve native vegetation. Residential lots will be located on relatively level land on or near the central ridge on the property, minimizing the need for grading and filling, and PUD roads will follow the site's existing contours minimizing the need for steep road cuts or slopes, As also discussed above, the applicant proposes to protect the deer winter range habitat on The Tree Fara and Tree Farm 2 by clustering most of the dwellings outside the winter range, creating gaps between clusters of dwellings where there are existing, deer migration corridors, and preserving native vegetation except where removal or modification is necessary for fire fuel treatments or to enhance wildlife habitat. However, as discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant failed to demonstrate The Tree Farm will be compatible with Fhevlin Park and forest lands to the west because its wildfire plan is inadequate. I also have found the applicant' failed to demonstrate The Tree Farm will adequately protect winter deer range if more aggressive fire fuel treatments, such as clearing of slopes on the lots and/or in the open space tracts, are required to reduce the risk of fire for ridgetop dwellings such that Tree Farm 2 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD and is compatible with surrounding lands. For the sane reasons, I find the applicant has not demonstrated Tree Farm 2 will provide for the preservation of natural features and resources. Tree Farris 2, 247-14- 0244CU, 247 14.000245 -TP Page 33 of 114 The subdivision will not facilities and services, development. create excessive demand on public and uti Police. Police protection will be providedby the Desch utes Cou my S heriff. Fire Protection. Fire protection gill be provided by the City of Bend Fire Department. In his September 2, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Deputy Bend'' Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Larry Medina identified a number of Oregon Fire Code (OFC) provisions applicable to The Tree Farm. These comments can be summarized as follows, 1. Standards for fire apparatus access roads. The OFC requires that fire apparatuapparatus access roads; (a) extend within 150 feet of all buildings; (b) have an unobstructed width of at least 20 feet; (c) have unobstructed vertical clearance of at least 13 feet 6'' inches; (d) be designed and maintained with an all-weather surface that can support vehicles weighing 60,000 pounds; (e) have a grade not exceeding 10 percent, and (f) if gated, have a 'Knox Key Switch" operable by the fire department. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to design and construct all roads in Tree Farm 2 and the gated temporary emergency access road in compliance with these standards. 2. Standards for fire protection water supplies. The OFC requires that The Tree Farm have an approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection to buildings, the adequacy to be determined "by an approved method." The OFC also requires that the applicant provide documentation of adequate fire flow to the fire department prior to final approval of the water supply system. The OFC states installation of fire hydrants along fire apparatus access roads may be required by the fire code official Finally, the OFC states that if fire hydrants are installed they must be no farther than 400 feet apart. As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the city's water supply analysis shows extension of and connection to its water facilities can provide fire flow of 2,000 gpm at each residential lot, the minimum flow prescribed by the city, In addition, the applicant's Preliminary Utility Pan diagram, included in Exhibit "E" to the Tree Fara 2 burden of proof, shows fire hydrants placed at 400 -foot intervals along al ll PUD roads abutting the residential lots. As also discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found that if the applicant' does not secure city water service for The Tree Farm, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval, and prior to submitting for approval the final plat for any Tree Farm development, to provide to the Panning Division a water system analysis from a registered professional engineer demonstrating', the alternate water system will provide at each residential lot water pressure of 40 psi during peak periods, 20 psi residual water pressure, and at least 2,000 gpm for fire flow. 3. Other fire service features. The OFC requires that each dwelling in Tree Farm 2 have an address number placed on a monument, pole or other sign so that it is plainly visible from the private road. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to provide address numbers as required by the OFC. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 will not create excessive demand on public facilities, services and utilities required to serve the development. F ND! continu N C. The tentative plan for the proposed subdivision€, meets the requirements of Oreon Revised Statutes Section 92.090. GS: ORS 92.090(1) states a new subdivision can only use the serve name if rt isa ation of an existing st€bdivrsron, with a sequential numbering syste , and must either be e Farm 2, 247" -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 85 of 114 platted by the same party or have the consent of the previous party. The applicant is requesting approval of five separate but interconnected ten -lot cl sterlPUDs to be known as Tree Farms `l through 5, with the overall project to be known as The Tree Farm, The Hearings Officer finds this subdivision name plan conforms to Subsection (1} of the statute. Subsection (2) of this statute requires that roads be laid out to conform with existing plats on adjoining ,,property, that streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan, and that all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth on the plat. The Hearings Officer finds there are no adjoining plats with which The Tree Farm must conform, As discussed above, Sage Steppe Drive is proposed to be dedicated to the public in order to provide a future road connection with the undeveloped UAR-zoned parcels to the north, The remainder of the PUD roads wouldbe private but would be subject to public access easements. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to show all public easements on the final plat for Tree Farm 2. I find that with imposition of this condition of approval, Tree Farm 2 will comply with Subsection (), Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the statute relate to final platting and therefore are not <applipable to Tree Farm 2. a For subdivisions or portions thereof proposed within a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMA) zone under Tit @e<18 of the schutes County Code De FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the subject property is not located within a SMIA Zone, E. The subdivision name has been approved by the County,' Surveyor. FINDINGS: Exhibit "P" to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof indicates the proposed names for The Tree Farm cluster/PUDs have been approved by the County Surveyor, therefore satisfyingr; this criterion, Section 17.16.105, Access toSubdivisions, No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it wll be accessed by roads constructed to County standards and by roads accepted for maintenance responsibility by a unit of local or state government. This standard is met if the subdivision' will have direct access to an im roved' collector or arterial, or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to such a collector or arterial, buy demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards and has been accepted for maintenance purposes. FINDINGS: Access to Tree Farm 2will be from Skyliners Road, 'a designated county collector road improved to the county's collet:, or road standards and maintained by the county, therefore satisfying this cnterion c. Section 17.6.115, Traffic Pa et Stu dies Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 24T -14 -000249 -TP Page X 6 of 114 Guidelines for Tra fflc Im pact Studies The following vehicle trip veneration thresholds shall determine the level and scope of transportation analysis required for a new or expanded development. Traffic impact Analysis (TIS): If the development or change in use vvill generate more than 200 trip, ends, and 20 or more PM peak hour trips, then a Traffic Impact Analysis (TM) ahal be required . r FINDINGS: The applicant sub r fitted a traffic study prepared by Kittelson & Associates, included in ,the record as Exhibit "H" to the burden of proof for Tree Farm 2. The 'traffic study was submitted because the applicant's traffic engineer predicted traffic generated by the 50 dwellings in The Tree Farm would generate over 400 trip endsThe traffic study concludes traffic generated by The Tree Farm will not exceed the capacity of affected transportation facilities at handout, or in 2017 and 2022 with the addition of other traffic from the surrounding area. The traffic study also found that no additional right-of-way or improvements are required, and neither the road department nor the city indicated the need for addition right -of -say € r improvements. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. 2. Cha pter 1703 6, Design Standard a Section 17,3 Aa 6,02 0Y Streets The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, topographical conditions, public convenience and safety, and the proposed use of land to be served by the streets. The street system shall assure an adequate traffic circulation system for all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, with intersection angles, grades, tangents and curves appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the terrain. The subdivision or partition shall provide forth the continuation of the principal streets existing;, in the adjoining subdivision or partitioh or of their property projection when adjoining property which is not subdivided, and such streets shall be of a width not leas than the minimum requirements for streets set forth in DCC FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to construct all Tree Farm roads in conformance v ith the applicable county local road standards — Le.. the public local road standards for Sage Steppe Drive, and the private local>' road standards for the private roads in The Tree Farm and Tree Farre 2 The proposed road layout generally follows the topographical contours of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2, and will provide direct access to each proposed residential lot. Separate Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU. 247 -14 -000245 -TP Peg,.:.= 87 of 114 multi -use paths are proposed along all new roads to provide adequate circulation for bicycles and pedestrians and adequate separation from vehicular traffic. There are no principalstreets in adjoining partitions or subdivisions that require the continuation of those streets into Tree Farm, 2. No alterations to road layout or design were identified by the road department. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion. B. Streets in subdivisions shall be dedicated to the public, unless located in a destination resort, planned community or planned or cluster development, where roads can be privately owned. Planned develo:*ments shall include *ublic streets here necessary accornanodate present and jErLyie tl rola h dried,) traffic. (Emphasis FINDINGS: With the exception of Sage Steppe Drive, the roads in The Tree Farm would be private roads as permitted for clusteriPUDs. Sage Steppe Drive would have a dedicated 60 -foot right-of-way to facilitate a future public' road connection between the Rio Lobo property and Skyliners Road or Crosby Road at such time as the Miller Tree Farm property is developed. The applicant >has proposed an interim gated secondary emergency access road from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive through the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive. The applicant states all private roads within The Tree Farm will be subject to public access easements to be shown on the final' plats`' for The Tree Farm.32 In his August 28, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, George Kolb stated that Paragraph (3) of this section requires the applicant to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for, and improve to the county's public road standards, a public road from the northern boundary of''The Tree Farm to Skyliners Road. This argument also was made by Peter Russell and by Miles Conway on behalf of opponent Rio Lobo. In his December 19, 2014 memorandum, Mr. Russell suggested the applicant be required to dedicate to the public and improve to public road standards all of Tree Farm Drive, the southern portion of Golden Mantle Loop, and all of Ridgeline Drive as the "primary access road" for The Tree Farm. Mr. Conway argued that this paragraph requires the applicant to dedicate to the public not only to provide for through traffic from development on the Rio Lobo property, but also to accommodate through traffic within The Tree Farm itself.' Both Mr. Conway and Mr. Russell argue the language in Paragraph (3) provides no discr� deviate from the public road dedication requirement. The Hearings Officer disagrees. 1 plain language of this paragraph makes clear the public road requirement is conting finding that such a road is "necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic." December 30, 2014 memorandum, Jeffrey Condit argued the dedication of pudic road rig way does not meet this "necessity" test, on to ind the ent on a n his htaof- ry 6, 2015 letter on behalf of Rio Lobo, Miles Conway states the applicant is offering only a "temporary' public access easement over the system of Tree Farm roads, and therefore The Tree Farm HCA, which would own and niatlege the ro,adss, could erect barters to `;:: r? } g'n traffic' within .,.. the subdivision. Mr. Conway is mistaken The applicant's burden proof for Tree Farm 2 makes clear the public access easements for Tree Farm roads will be permanent For example,' the Tree Farm 1 burden of proof states at page 54 that the private streets would have "public access to be dedicated w€th.the_flnal plat." (Emphasis added,) It is the easement across the ;;Miller Tree Farm property for the secondary rgency access road that will be Interim' until such time as tore Miller Tree Farm property is developed th public roads :fiat vtill connect Sage Steppe Drive and Skyl;ners Road. Tree Far2, 247.14-000244 CEJ, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 88of114 Mr; Condit argues a requirement that all PUD roads, and/or the proposed secondary access road, be dedicated to the public would constitute an unconstitutional "takings under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in NoIlan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, 107 S Ct 3141, 97 L Ed 2d 677 (1987), Dolan v. Cityof Tigard, 512 US 374, 114 S Ct 2309, 129 L Ed 2d 304 (1994), and Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 133 t 2586, 186 L Ed 2d 697 (2013). Specifically, he argues such a requirement would not meet the "essential nexus/roughly proportional" test articulated in the above cases. He also asserts the county, cannot require public road dedication through the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property because the county has no jurisdiction over that property. In response, LandWatch argues he Miller Tree Farm property is subject to the county's jurisdiction because the applicant proposed the secondary emergency access road across that property, and Miller Tree Farm owns both the adjacent property and The Tree Farm. The Hearings Officer disagrees. The applicant' proposed off-site road i€prove€ents to which the off-site property owner consented, l find that proposal does not confer jurisdiction on the county to require public dedication and improvement of that off-site road without the off-site property owner's consent. At most, I have authority to deny an application if I find an off-site road improvement were required for the proposal to meet the applicable approval criteria and no such off-site improvement were proposed Even assuming for purposes of discussion that the Hearings Officer has jurisdiction to require the public dedication of the proposed secondary access road, I agree with Mr. Condit that such a requirement -- or a requirement to dedicate to the public the Tree Farm Roads identified by Mr. Russell -- does not have a sufficient' nexus with, and is not roughly proportional to, traffic impacts from The Tree Farm development. 1 agree with Mr. Condit's analysis, set forth in his December 30, 2014 letter as follows: "A>; public street is not necessary to accommodate tfre through traffic that would be generated by development of the Rio Lobo property under the existing LIAR. 10' zoning. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a December 29, 2014 analysis provided by Joe Bessman, PE, of Kitteison responding to Rio Lobo's December 11, 2014, testimony prepared by larten, Law and Lancaster Engineering (Kitteison Memo). The Kittelson Memo confirms that the local street system proposed by the Applicant is more than sufficient to accommodate the development of up to 37 single-family home sites on the Rio Lobo Property'' As the County notes, `[the transportation effects [on the surrounding street system] of such nominal development would be de minimis.'' Rio Lobo argues that 'future through traffic' has to include consideration of the potential development of the Rio Lobo property as a destination resort or as urban development. The County correctly rejects, such development as too speculative to require the Applicant to address it as part of this application. Development of the 'ro Lobo property as a destination resort would require comp/lance with the m xltipie criteria of DCC Chapter 19.106, which, at nrtr3lrrrrrrra, zroul'd require a new traffic impact analysis and approval of a Master Plan. Most significantly, as noted in the Kittelson Memo. DCC 19.106.0060(C) requires all destination resorts to 'have direct access onto a state, county, or, city arterial or collector roadway as designated by the Bend Area General Plan.' As discussed in more detail below, the only designated collector or arterial to which the Rio Lobo property currently has direct access is the future extension of Tree Farm 2, 247' -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -114 -000245 -TP Page 89 of 114 Skyline Ranch Road. A destination resort on the Rio Lobo property would be prohibited from taking indirect access via a Sage Steppe road extension over The Tree Farm, and Miller Properties unless and until Rio Lobo seeks and obtains an amendment to the Bend Area General Plan' to designate such a roadway as a collector. Because such an amendment would have to be based on a demonstrated need, at a minimum it would have to occur in conjunction with an actual application for a destination resort. Rio Lobo has submitted no evidence that such an application is irrrrnirlent, viable, or would otherwise be compliance with Chapter 19.106. Although UAR 10 zoning does anticil to v teal urbanization, urbanization of tl e Rio Lobo property requires subsequent legislatite decisions by the City and the County in ,compliance with state law, and would bring the property under the City's transportation jurisdiction. It also, as noted by. Kittelson, would require an amendment to the BUAGP transportation system plan, which would'' require a needs analysis for urbanization of all the newly added properties.16 There are thus multiple future opportunities to obtain the necessary connections in the event the properties are added to the UGB. Such speculative future development does not justify imposition of a condition requiring the Applicant to dedicate additional richt of way or construct a street under the County Code or the Takings Clause as interpreted in Schultz! The Applicant has addressed the impacts on future connectivity that arise from its development by providing for and dedicating Sage Steppe right-of-way That right-of-way will be available for use at such time as Rio Lobo and/or Miller Tree Farm properties are developed and the requirement for its dedication and construction can he imposed at that time. The fact that Rio Lobo may have to await development of the Miller Property for the connection to Skyiiners Road to be dedicated and constructed puts Rio Lobo in no different position than it is in now, Indeed, the dedication of Sage Steppe ensures that a connection will occur at this point pursuant to DCC 17.36.020(B) when development of the Miller Property occurs. For these reasons, dedication of the Sage Steppe right-of-way by the Applicant addresses the future connectivity impacts on surrounding properties that arise from the development of the Tree Farm property, No additional exactions are warranted under the Takings Clause. 'indeed, the County s only requesting dedication requesting any change in the construction o local public streets and local private streets are Table A. o l right -of the street system, The req virtually the same, See DC f additiona ants. for Chapter 17 16Given the relative location of the Rio Lobo property vis-a-vis the Miller Property and the Anderson Raneb property [located north of the Rio Lobo property], which are directly` adjacent to the >cuBend city limits, the Rio Lobo property is unlikely to be added to the Bend L GB` unless or until for after) the Miller and Anderson; Ranch properties are The Hearings Officer finds Section 17.36.020(B) does not require the applicant to dedicate a public road — either off-site or within The Tree Farm — as part of The Tree Farm development in order to provide access from the Rio Lobo property to Skyliner-s Road. Tree Farm , 247'-14.000244-CLJ 247 -14 -000245 -TP Pag 9(J of 114 Section 17, ,040,Existing Streets Whenever existing streets, adjacent to or withirn a tract, are of inadequate width to accorrmnodate, the increase in traffic expected from the subdivision or partition by the county roadway network plan, additional rights of way shall be provided at the time of the hand division by the applicant. During consideration of the tentative plan for the subdivision or partition, the Planning Director or Hearings Body, together with the Public Works Director, shall determine whether improvements to existing >.streets adjacent to or within the tract, are required. If so determined, such improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the tentative plan. Improvements to adjacent streets shall be required where traffic on such streets will be directly affected by the proposed subdivision or partition. FINDINGS: The only existing street adjacent to Tree, Farm 2 is Skyliners Road, a designated county collector road with a 60 -foot right -of -wad. No additional right-of-way or other improvement to Skyl'€hers Road was identified in the applicant's traffic study or by the road department. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion,, c. ction 17.6:00, Continuation of Streets Subdivision: or partition streets which constitute the>continua streets in contiguous territory shall' "be aligned so the centerlines coincide., F'I'LING; The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable beca no streets that would constitute a continuation of other streets. d. Section 17,36,060, Minis °sum son of the r use Tree Farm 2 has Right of Way and Roadway Width' The street right of way and; roadway surfacing widths shall be in conformance with standards and specifications set forth in chapter 17,48 of this title. Where chapter 17,48 refers to street standards found, in a zoning r; ordinance, the standards in the zoning ordinance shall prevail', FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to 'improve all PUD roads to the county's standards for public and private local roads and to improve them with 20 feet of paved surface as provided in Table A of Title 17. As discussed above, the applicant proposes that all private PUD roads be subject to public access easements, and the Hearings Officer has found that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to, show those easements on the final plats for The Tree Farm. For these reasons, I find Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion Section 17.36.070, Future Resubdivisio Where a tract of and is divided into lots or parcels of an acre or more, the Hearings Body may require an arrangement of lots or parcels and streets such as to permit future resubdivision ire conformity to the street requirements contained in this title, Tree Farm 2, 247`14-000244-C , 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 91 of 114 FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 states the applicant intends'' that The Tree Farm never will be annexed into the Bend UGB or redeveloped. The applicanthas proposed deed restrictions for The Tree Farm open space tracts that would' preclude further division or development thereof. However, as discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has required the applicant, as a condition of approval, to provide to the Planning Division for its review, and to record, revised deed restrictions that provide for permanent preservation of The Tree Farm open space tracts. For these reasons, and with imposition of that condition of approval,, I find it is not necessary or appropriate to require an arrangement of lots in Tree Farm 2 permitting future resubdivision. Section 17.3 608 0, Future Exte n s90 n of Streets When necessary to give access to or permit' a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision or partition. FINDINGS: Sage Steppe Drive will be dedicated to the public and will be stubbed off at the northern boundary of Tree Farm 1 in order to provide a future road connection to the vacant UA -1Q Rio Lobo property to the north. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant is not required to dedicate and improve other public roads within The Tree Farm, or the proposed off- site secondary emergency access road, to accommodate future through traffic from the Rio Lobo property. For these reasons, 1 find Tree Fara 2 satisfies this criterion. Section 1736 100, Fro nta ge Roads`,' If a and division abuts, or contains an existing or proposed collector or arterial'' street, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require frontage roads, reverse frontage lots or parcels with suitable depth, screen planting contained in a non -access reservation along the rear or side property line, or other treatment necessary for adequate protection of residential properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic. AH frontage roads shall comply with the applicable standards of Table A of DCC Title' 17, unless specifications included in a particular zone provide other standards applicable to frontage roads. FINDINGS: A portion of Tree Fare 2 abuts Skyliners»Road a designated county collector road. However, the Hearings Officer finds no frontage road is required because none of the proposed residential lots will abut or take direct access from Sky ners Road. >.l also find no reverse frontage lots are necessary because the proposed open space tracts will provide significant separation between the proposed residential lots and Skyliners Road. Section 17.36.110, Streets Adjacent to Railroads, Parkways Freeways and When the area to be divided adjoins or contains a railroad, freeway or parkway, provision may be required for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right of way at a distance` suitable for use of the land between the street and railroad, freeway or parkway. 1n the case of a railroad, there shall be a land strip of not Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247-114-€ 00245 -TP Page 92 of 114 less than 25 feet in width ad acent and along the railroad right of way and residential property. If the irntervaning property between such parallel streets and a freeway or a parkway is less than 80 feet in width, such intervening property shall be dedicated to park or thoroughfare use. The intersections of such parallel streets, where they intersect with streets that cross a railroad, shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets of a minimum distance required for approach grades to a fu re grade separation and right of way widths of the cross street FINDINGS: The Hearings'Officer finds this d property is not adjacent to a railroad, freeway or Section 17,38,120, Stre iterion is parkway. et N ames n ot a pplic because the subj ect Except for extensions of existing streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established' pattern in the County FINDINGS: GS: Exhibit "Q" to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof indicates the applicant has received county approval for all Tree Farm road names, therefore satisfying this criterion. R not Section 17.36.13 0, Sidewal ks A. Within an urban growth boundary, sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of a public road or street any in any spec al pedestrian way within the subdivision or partition, and along any collectors and arterials it proved''' in accordance with the subdivision or partition. NDING ; The Hearings Officer finds this criterion Fl coated within the Bend UG B. is not a pplicab e beoau B. ` Vithin an urban area, sidewalks sh frontage roads only on the side of the developraent. NDING The Hearings Officer finds this criterion ntage reads in Tree Farm 2. I DIN not a e Tree Farm 2 is Il be required along the frontage road abutting pplicable beca use there are no C. Sidewalk requirements for areas outside of urban area are set forth in section 17.48.175. In the absence of a special requirement set forth by the Road Department Director under DCC 17,48.030, sidewalks and curbs are never required in rural > areas outside unincorporated cos rinurrities as that term is defined in Title 18. GS: The Hearings Officer finds no sidewalks are ocated in a rura a rea outside unincorporated communitie Tree Farm 2, 247.14-000244-C quired in Tree Farm 2 becaL U. 47 -14 -000245 -TP Page 93 of 114 Sect A. n 17 36.140, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Requirements, Pedestrian and Bicyol e 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 will 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) other rise meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, considering the destination and length of trip. FINDINGS: The Tree Farm would include a multi -use path system including eight- and ten -foot - wide paved paths that would run parallel to all subdivision roads. The multi -use paths wil'I provide access to Skyliners Road and beyond to NorthWest Crossing. the three nearby public schools, and the rest of the Bend urban area. The applicant also proposes a number of soft surface recreation/mountain bike trails within the open space tracts and linking with trails in Sh vlin Park and the DNF to the west. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion Subdivision Layout Cul-de-sacs 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 the Planning Director or Hearings Body to be infeasible' or inappropriate. In such instances, where applicable and feasible, there shall be a bicycle and pedestrian connection connecting the ends of cul-de-sacs to streets or neighborhood activity centers on the opposite side of the block, FINDINGS: The applicant proposes cul-de-sacs at the eastern terminus of Tree Farm 1 and at the western terminus of Canopy Court in Tree Farm 4, The has found in my decisions in Tree Farms 1 and 4 that these cul-de-sacs topography and the lack of through -street connections. Rid ael€ne Court in ea rings Officer by are justified 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections between streets. shall be provided at mid -block where the addition of a connection will reduce the 'alking or cycling distance to an exiting or planned neighborhood activity center by 400 feet and by at bast 50 percent over other available routes. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 94 of 114 FINDINGS° The;, Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farm 2 because there are no existing or planned ne€ghborhood, activity centers for which mid -block connections are warranted or necessary. Local roads shall align and connect with themselves across collectors and arterials. Connections to exasti:ia or lawnd streetsand'' Anlevelcie propertiie shall be provided at raga c reater..thari , lq foot intervals` 4. Connections shall not be more41E 400 feet' Ion and shall be as stmt ht ,, possible. G. Facilities and improvements 1. Bikeways may be provided by either a separate pa path or an on -street bike lane,,, consistent with requirements of DCC Title 17. Pedestrian access may be provided by sidewalks c separate paved path, consistent with the requ of DCC Title 17. Connections shall hair ed he nts e a 20.fo€t ri ht' rafkwa smith at Emphasis added.) least a 10 -foot usable surface. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds there are no existing local roads that must be aligned across Skyliners Road. The parties and county staff disagree as to the meaning of the above -underscored language. Miles Conway argues on behalf of Rio Lobo that this language requires the applicant'' to provide stubbed road connections at least 400 feet long and at 400 -foot intervals along the northern boundary of The Tree Farm to provide future connections to the undeveloped Rio Lobo property. Peter Russell responded in his December ''11, 2014 memorandum that the underscored language must be read in the context of the title of this section -- "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Requirements" -- and the rest of ti e section which addresses bicycle, and pedestrian connections. in particular, Mr. Russell, notes the term "connections" in Paragraph (C)(3) of this section clearly refers to bicycle/pedestrian paths because it requires a minimum paved width of 10 feet, far less than minimum 20 -foot pavement width required for roads. For this reason, Mr. Russell argues the better reading of the underscored language is that, at most, it establishes a requirement of 10 -foot -wide paved bicycle/pedestrian con e ot;ons at 400 -foot, intervals along the Tree Farm's borders with adjacent undeveloped property. In his December 30, 2014 letter, Mr. Condit agreed with Mr. Russell's interpretation of the connection requirement, but argues this requirement should not be applied to rural subdivisions because it would produce an absurd result. For example, he notes that if The Tree Farm lots along the Rio Lobo border were 10 acres in size, the 400-foot-interval/400-foot-long connections would bisect the lots and create paths "leading to nowhere." Mr. Condit also argues that if this connection requirement is applicable to Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3, 1t also wd€.ald apply to the 33 As noted in the f,ndn 9 s above u the 1JAR-'10 Zone, the rninirnum lot width in that one is 300 feet. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page95of-114 adjacent undeveloped »Mil ler'Tree Farm property and therefore to the entire border between that property and Tree Farm 1. Since most of the land in Tree Farms 1, 2 and is less than 408 feet wide, compliance with the connection requirement would not be feasible' in Tree Farms 1 and 2. Mr. Condit also notes the county did not apply this bicycle path connection requirement to prior approvals for three rural PUDs on nearby properties: Turrraf° Creek Development (CU -05-17, TP -05-958) (adjacent to the Rio Lobo property on the north); Cascade Highlands (CU -02_73, TP -02-931) (The Highlands at Broken Top subdivision across Skyl ners Road to the south); and Shevlin Heights (Anderson Ranch) (ZC-00 5, CU -00..112, TP -00-916) (north of the Rio Lobo property). A review of these decisions indicates the connection standard was not applied to these PUDs based on findings that there were no existing or planned neighborhood activity' centers in the vicinity, and/or that the standard does not apply to private roads. Finally; Mr. Condit argues that if the Hearings Officer concludes the »bicycle/pedestrian path connection requirement is applicable to The Tree Farm, 1 should grant an exception under Section 19.104.070(C), discussed in the findings above, in light of The Tree Farmi's demonstrated benefits in general, and the extensive multi -use path/trail system proposed for The Tree Farm, The Hearings Officer agrees with Mr. Russell that read in context, the "'connections" required by Section 17.36 140(B)(3) and (4) are bicycle/pedestrian' path connections and not road connections. l also agree with ''' Mr. Condit that application of this requirement to rural subdivisions including The Tree Farm would be inappropriate and infeasible. Finally, I find the applicant has demonstrated an exception to this requirement is justified by the benefits provided by The Tree Farm, particular'•ly the extensive multi -use path/trail system. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing approval of the exception described abo s Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies these criteria ve. Section 17x36 150, Blocks h A. General, The length, width and shape of blocks >shall accommodate the need for adequate building size, street, width, and direct travel routes for pedestrians and cyclists through the subdivision and to nearby neighborhood activity centers, and shall be compatible with the limitations of the topography., FINDINGS: Section 1708.030 defines "block" as "an area of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights of way, lines or shorelines or mays, or corporate boundary lines of a city.' The Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 does not contain any.. "blocks' inasmuch as no area of land within the proposed development is bounded by streets or the ether listed features. Within an urban growth boundary, no block shall be longer than 1,200 feet between street centerlines. In blocks over 600,' feet in length, there shall be a cross connection consistent' with the provisions of DCC 17 36.140, wat 'Hll ©IN S: Tree Farm 2 is not located within the finds this criterion is not applicable. m. Section 17,3 6. 0 Eas Tres Farm 2, 247--14-000244-CU, 247-14-010245 f Bend nts UB. Therefore, the Hearings Officer Page 96 of 114`` Utility easements, Easements shall be provided along" property lines when necessary for the pi cement of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or partition with electric power, communication, facilities, street lighting, sewer lines, water lines, gas lutes 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 unsubthvided land may be reduced to 10 feet in width. FINDING: The Tree Farm 2 burden of proof states the applicant intends to locate all utilities in roadside trenches, either within the private road rights-of-way or within multiple use easements (MUEs) paralleling the rights-of-way, as shown on the Preliminary Water Plan included in the record as Exhibit "E" to the burden of proof. The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to show all MUEs on the find plat for Tree Farris 2. 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, air in such further width as will be adequate for the purpose, Streets or parkways parallel to major watercourses or dralnageways, may be required, FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion property is not traversed by a watercourse, n. Section 17.36.170,, Lots « Size and S is not applica hape ble bec se t e s Lib ect The size, width' and, orientation of lots or parcels shall be appropriate' for the location of the land division and/or the type of development and use contemplated, and shall be consistent with the lot or parcel size provisions of Titles 18 through 21 of this code, with the following exceptions: A. In areas not to be served by a public sewer, minimum lot and parcel sizes shall permit compliance with the requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality and the County Sanitarian, and shall be sufficient to permit adequate sewage disposal. Any problems posed by soil structure and water table and related to sewage disposal by septic tank shall be addressed and resolved in the applicant's initial plan FINDINGS; The proposed residential lots in Tree Farm 2 will be two acres in size. The applicant submitted'' a septic suitability study, included in the record as Exhibit "F' to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof, indicating the soils on the subject property are suitable for on-site septic systems. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish building envelopes on each lot within which dwellings must be constructed, As discussed above, l have granted an exception to the minimum lot width for Lot 1 in Tree Farm 1. And l have found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain an approved septic site evaluation for each residential, lot in Tree Farm 2 poor to final plat approval. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the size, width Tree Farre 2, 247 4 -000'244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page: 97 of 114 and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate for the proposed planned development, consistent with the rri'inirr um lot sizes in the RR -10 and UAR€-1 O Zones, and large enough to accommodate on-site septic systems. Section 17.3 A. .180, Frontag Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road, or when located in a planned development or chaster 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 reads. Frontage for partitions off U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads shall be deckled on a case by case basis based on the location of the property, the condition of the road, and the orientation of the proposed parcels, but shell be at least 20 feet. In the Le '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 Fine Neighborhood €dancing Area Zoning Standards. Road frontage standards in destination resorts shall be subject to review in the conceptual master plan. All side lot lines shall be at right angles to street radial to curved streets wherever practical. Ines or FINDINGS: With the exception of Lot 1 in Tree Farm 1, all proposed residential lets in The Tree Farm will have at least 50 feet of road frontage, or at,least 30 feet of road frontage for those lots located on a cul-de-sac. In the Hearings Officer's decision in Tree Farm 1 I approved an exception, to the 50 -foot road frontage >requirement for Lot 1 based on my finding that the benefits of the proposed cluster/PLDs justify the requested exceptions. 'Generally, Tree Farm 2 lot lines are at right eagles to Ridgeline Drive. For the foregoing reasons, l find Tree Farm satisfies this criterion. p. Section 17 36.190, Throug h 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 shall 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 : Section > 17.08 030 defines "through lot" as "an interior I having frontage an two streets." As discussed in my Tree Farm 1 decision, l have found the tentative plan for Tree Farm 1 shows Lots 4, 5, 8, and 9 will have frontage on both Sage Steppe Drive and Ridg&line Drive. However, because the tentative plan for Tree Farm 2 shows no through lots, 1 find this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farm 2. Iree Farm 2, 247-14- 0244 -CU 247.14-0 00245 -TP Page 98of114'' Section 17! 6.2 00, Come r toot 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 FINDINGS: The Hearings 0 'hoer fin located outside the Bend UGB. d s this orite€rion is not ap Plica ble Section 17.36.210,, Solar Access 'performance' because Tree Far re€ 2 is A. As much solar access as feasible shall be provided each lot or parcel in every new subdivision or partition, considering topography, development pattern and existing vegetation The lot lines of lots or parcels, as far as feasible, shall be oriented to provide solar access at ground level at the southern building line two hours before and after the soar' zenith from September 22nd to March 21st. if it is not feasible to provide solar access to the southern building >line, then solar access, if feasible, shall be provided at 10 feet above ground level at the southern building line two hours before and after the solar zenith from September 22nd to March 21st, and three hours before and after the solar zenith from March 22nd to September 21st. This solar access shall be protected by soler height restrictions on burdened properties for the benefit of lots or parcels receiving the solar access. If the solar access for any lot or parcel, either at the southern building line or at 10 feet above the southern building line, required by this performance standard is not feasible, supporting information must be filed with the, application. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the size, shape and orientation of the residential lots n Tree Farm 2 will allow for the dwellings on these lots to meet the solar access standards. Section 1 7.36.220, Un derground Facilities Within an urban growth boundary, all permanent utility services to lots or parcels in a subdivision or partition shall be provided from underground facilities; provided, however, the Hearings Body may allow overhead utilities if the surrounding area is already served by overhead utilities and the proposed subdivision, or partition will create less than ten lots.. The subdivision or partition shall be responsible for complying with requirements of this section and shallop. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this section is not applicable because the property is located outside the Bend UB; T' 2, 247 14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -00024b -TP Pae 99 of 114 s ection 17.3 626 0Y, Fire H azards Whenever possible, a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision or partition shall be provided to provide assured access for emergency vehicles and ease resident evacuation. FIND 1NGS: The applicant proposes two points of access to The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 2 - the main PUD road that intersects with akyliners Road at he southern boundary of Tree Farm 1 and the proposed secondary emergency access road running from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive in Tree Farm 1 south through the ad`acent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive, As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the secondary access road will provide an adequate means of evacuation and emergency vehicle access with imposition of conditions of approval requiring the road to be improved to the fire department's standards for such roads, and with installation of a gate/lock system that allows the gate to be opened by residents and guests. 1 also have found the applicant will be required to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to assure access to the residential lots. Such access will allow use of the emergency access by lots in Tree Farms 2 and 3, u. Section 17.36.280 Water and Sewer Lines Where required by the applicable zoning ordinance, water and sewer lines shall,' be constructed to County and city standards and specifications. Required water mains and service lines, shall' be installed prior to the curbing and paving of new streets in all, new subdiv s ons or partitions. FINDING: No new sewer lines are proposed because residential bats in Tree Farm 2 would be served by on-site septic systems. The Hearings Officer finds that if these residential lots are connected to the City of Bend water facilities, the applicant will be required as a condition of approve) to construct all required water lines in compliance with the city's standards and specifications therefor. v. >Section 17v3 6.290, Individual Wells 1n any subdivision or partition where individual wells are proposed, the applicant shall provide documentation of the depth and quantity of potable water available from a minimum of two wells within one mile of the proposed land division. Notwithstanding DCC 17.36 00, individual wells for subdivisions are allowed when parcels are larger than 10 acres. FIND 1NGS: The applicant has stated its preferred alternative for providing domestic water to the residential lots in Tree Farm 2 is the extension of City of Bend water service. However, if that connection is not possible, and the applicant does not obtain water service from Avion Water Company, the applicant proposes to provide domestic water through one or more groundwater wells. The applicant submitted as Exhibit "M" to the Tree Farm 2 burden of proof well logs for two wells on property in the vicinity of the subject property demonstrating that water is available in t'he area. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion. Section 17 36. 0 0 Public Water System Tree Fart 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU 247-14-COO245-TP Page 100 of 114 in any subdivision or partition where a public water system is req lred or proposed, plans for the water system shall be submitted and approved by the appropriate state or federal FINDINGS: S: The Hearings Officer finds that if the residential lots In Tree Farm 2 are served by City' of Bend or Vivian water service, compliance with this criterion will be, accomplished through the city's or Avion's compliance with applicable public water system requirements. 3. Chapter 17.44, Park Development Secti n 17,44.010, Dedication +of Land For subdivisions or partitions outside of an urban growth boundary, the developer shall set aside a minimum area of the development equal to $360 per dwelling unit within the development, if the land is suitable and adaptable' for such purposes and is generally located in an area planned''' for parks. For either DCC 17.44.010 (A) or (B), the developer shall either dedicate the land set aside to the public or develop and provide maintenance for the and set aside as a private' park open to the public The >.Planning Director or >.H whether or not such land is s earings Body shall deter me uitable for park purposes, If the developer dedicates the land set aside in accordance with CCC ''17.44.010(A) or (8), any approval by the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall be subject to the condition that the County or appropriate park district accept the deed dedicating such and. DCG 17.44.010 shall not apply to the subdivision or partition of lands located within the boundaries of the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District or the Central Oregon Park and Recreation District. FINDINGS: The record indicates all the boundaries of the park district, a are not applicable. b. Sec s n proposed residential ots in Tree Farm 2 are located within nd therefore the, Hearings Officer finds these requirements 17,44,020, Fee in Lieu of Ded icatiorn A. hi the event there is no suitable park or recreation area or site in the proposed subdivision or partition, or adjacent thereto, then the developer shall, in lieu of settinaside land, pay into a park acquisition and development fund a sum of money equal to the fair market value of the land that will have been Tree Farm 2, 247-14--000244-CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 1 of 114 onated u d er DCC 17.44.010 bov . For the purpose of determining the fair market value, the latest value of the land, unplatted and without improvements, as shown on the County Assessor's tax roll shall be used. The sum so contributed shall'' be deposited with the County Treasurer and be used for acquisition of su table area for park and recreation purposes or for the development of recreation facilities. Such expend tures shall be made for neighborhood or community nity facilities at the discretion of the Board and/or applicable park district:,, DCC 17.44.020 shall not apply to subdivision or partition of lands located within the boundaries of the Bend Metro Park and '''Recreation District or the Central Oregon Park and Recreation District. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that because ali proposed residential lots in Tree Far:rn are located within the boundaries of the park district, this section does not appiy. 4. Cha pter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications Section 17.48.140, Bikeways A. General Design Crteri 1b Bikeways shall be designed in accordance with the current standards and guidelines of the Oregon (0 0T) Bicycle and Pedestrian Pan, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (A. HTO) Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities= and the Deschutes County Bicycle Master Pan. See DCC 17.48 Table B. 2. An collectors and arterials shown on the County Transportation Pan map shall be constructed to include bikeways as defined by the Deschutes County Bicycle Master Plano B. Mul If interim road standards are used, interim bikeways and/or walkways shall be provided. These interim facilities shall be adequate to serve bicyclists and pedestrians until the time of road upgrade. ti -use Paths. 1. Multi -use; paths shall be used where aesthetic, recreation and safety concerns are ; primary and a direct route with few intersections can be established. If private roads are constructed to a width of less than 28 feet, multi -use paths shall be provided, Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247--14-000245-Tp Page 102 of 114 Multi -use paths are two way facilities with a standard width of 10 feet, but with a 12 foot width if they are subjected to high use by multiple users. These paths shall meet County multi -use path standards and shall, connect with bike facilities on public roads. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to provide multi -use paths in The Tree Farm through additional width on a segment of Tree Farm Drive, and eight- or ten -foot -wide multi -use paths along the rest of the PUD roads. A ten -foot -wide multi -use path is proposed to parallel Tree Farm Drive from its intersection with Skyliners Road to the ,point where„the path splits to go to Shevhin Park to the west. From that point to the intersection of Golden Mantle Loop and Ridgeline'''Drive and throughout the rest of The Tree Farm, the multi -use paths are proposed to be eight feet wideThe Hearings Officer has approved an exception to allow reduced width from ten to eight feet for neighborhood multi -use paths, requested by the applicant because of projected low traffic volumes, based on my finding that the benefits from The Tree Farm justify the exception. For these reasons, and with the exception granted for the eight -foot path, i find Tree Farm 2 satisfies these criteria. C. Bike Lanes. Six foot bike lanes shall be used o construction of curbed arterials and collectors. Sho 1. ri e alder Bikeways. Shoulder bikeways shall be used on new construction of uncurbed arterials and collectors. 2. Shoulder bikeways shall be at least four feet wide. Where the travel ,,lane on an existing arterial; or collector is not greater than eleven feet, the bikeway shall be a minimum s of four feet wide. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable because no new collectors or arterials are proposed. E. Mountain Bike Trails, Mountain bike (dirt or other unpaved surface) trails may be used as recreational or interim transportation facilities. 2. Trails used for transportation shall have a two foot minimum tread width and a six foot minimum clearing width centered over the trail, and a minimum overhead clearance of seven feet. Trails used solely for recreational use may be narrower with less clearing of vegetation. FINDINGS: As shown on Exhibit "C” to The Tree Farm burdens of, proof., the applicant proposes a network of soft -surface recreation!€nauntain bike trails linking with trails in Shevlin Park and in the DNF to the west. However, because none of these recreation trails would be located in Tree Farm 2, the Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable to Tree Farm Tree Fa m 2, 247` -t4 -000244 -CU, 0245 -TP Page 103 of 114 Sect 17.48.16 0, A. Road Development Requirements — Stand rds Subdivision Standards. M 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 districtor horeovvners association in a planned unit development FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to dedicate to the public and to improve Sage Steppe Drive in compliance with the county's standards for public rural roads, and to improve all public and private PUD roads with 20 feet of paved surface as provided in Table "A" to Title 17. The applicant also proposes that all Tree Farm roads will be maintained by the HOA. As noted above, the record indicates the county is not accepting new roads into its road maintenance system. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion. B, improvements of public Rig hts of Way. �l. The developer of a <subdivision or partition will be required to improve all public ways that are adjacent or within the land development. 2. Ali improvements within public rights of way shall conform to the improvement standards designated in DCC Title 17 for the applicable road classification, except where a zoning ordinance sets forth different standards for a;,;,particular zone. FINDINGS: The only public right-of-way adjacent to the subject property is S' yliners Road, an improved county collector. As discussed above, the road department did not identify any necessary improvements to Skyllners Road. The applicant proposes to improve all PUD roads to the to the county's standards for local public and private roads, including 20 feet of paved surface. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion, C. Primary Access Roads. The primary access road for any new subdivision shall be unproved to the applicable standard set forth in Table A (or the applicable standard set forth in 'a zoning ordinance). The applicable standard shall' be determined with reference to the road's classification under the relevant transportation plan. For the purposes of this section a primary access road is a road leading to the subdivision from an existing paved county, city or state maintained road that provides the primary access to the subdivision from such a road. FINDINGS: The primary access road to The Tree Farm consists of Tree Farre Drive, Golden;, fel ntie Loop, and Ridgeline Drive, The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to improve the segments of these roads within Tree Farrn 2 to the county's standards for local private roads in Table' "A" to Title 17. In addition, as discussed in the findings above; 1 have found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to assure the primary access road is in place to serve all lots in those developments. Tree Farrr2 , 24T-14-000244 CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 104 of 114 D. Secondary Access Roads. When deemed necessary by the County Road Department or Community % Development Department, a secondary access road shall be constructed to the subdivision Construction shall be to the same standard used for roads within the subdivision. FINING: The road department did not identify the need for a secondary access road. However, the applicant proposes to construct a temporary emergency access road from the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive south through the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property to Crosby Drive. The applicant proposes to improve this emergency access road to the fire department's standards for fire apparatus access roads, including a 24 -foot -wide all-weather surface. As discussed above, this emergency access road will be an interim access until the Miller Tree Farm property is developed with public roads to which Sage Steppe '''Drive can connect. Under these circumstances; the Hearings Officer finds the proposed level of improvement is appropriate for the secondary access road.34 E. Stubbed Roads. Any proposed road that terminates at a development boundary shall''' be constructed with a paved cul- de-sac ul-de .sac bulb. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farm 2 because no cul-de-sacs are proposed for Tree Farm 2. In my decision in Tree Farm 1, I found the proposed cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Ridgeline Court, and the stubbed street at northern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive, are justified because of the steep topography and lack of through -street connections in the vicinity. F. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall have alength of less than 600 feet, unless a longer length is approved by the applicable fire protection district, and more than 100 feet from the center of the bulb to the iriterse tion with the main road. The maximum grade on the bulb shall) be four percent. FINDINGS: The Heanngs Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because no cul-de-sacs are proposed in Tree Farm 2, However, in my decision in Tree Farm 1, I found the Ridgeline Court cul-de-sac will be less than 600 feet in length, and will have mord than 100 feet from the center of the cul-de-sac bulb to the intersection with Ridgeline Drive. In my decision in Tree Fare 5, '''I found the Canopy Court cul-de-sac will be longer than 600 feet. Because the fire department did not address the length of Canopy Court in its co lents on The Tree Farm, I' found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval, and before submitting the 'final plat', for Tree Farm 5, to submit to the Planning Division written documentation from the fire department that it has approved the length of Canopy, Court), Section 17.4€ .180, Private Roads The fol Ion ng min road standard shall a pply for priva roa d 3 4 The burden of proof for Tree Fano 1 states the applicant would request a variance;. to the requirement that the secondary access road be paved. However, in an e-mail message dated August 15, 2014, the applicant's representative Romyj Mortensen clarified the applicant is not seeking a variance and does not believe one is required. Tree Farm;;%2, 247-14-000244- J, 247-14 0 00245-T1 Page 105 of 114 A. The minimum paved roadway width shall" be 20 feet in planned unit developments and cluster developments with two -foot wide gravel shoulders,,, Minimum radius of cu M ax rvatu re, mum grade, 12 percent; 0 feet; FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 states the private roads will ri eet these standards, and the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required to construct the PUD's private roads in, compliance with these standards as a condition of approval. At least one road name sign will intersection for each road; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant wil to comply with this criterion. E. A method for continui County, be provided at each be required as a condition, of approval,' ng road maintenanc ce ptable to the FINDINGS: The, applicant proposes that The Tree Farm HOA will own and maintain alll tree farm roads. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to execute a road maintenance agreement with the county that is acceptable to the county . F. Private road systems shall include provisions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In ckister and planned developments ents Iiniited to ten dwelling units, the bicycle and pedestrian traffic can be accommodated within the 20 -foot wide road. in other developments, shoulder bikeways shall be a minimum of four feet wide, paved and striped, with no on -street parking alloy ved within the bikeway, and when private roads' are developed to a width of less than 28 feet, bike paths constructed to County standards shall be required. FINDINGS: As discussed in findings throughout this decision, the applicant proposes to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic in The Tree Farm through a system of paved multi - paths running parallel to PUD roads. The segment of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farm 3 would have a 26 foot -wide paved surface to its intersection with Golden Mantle Loop, and all other public and private road segments — including the segment of Ridgeline Drive in Tree Farm 2, would have a '''20 -foot paved width with adjacent or nearby eight- or ten -foot -wide paved bicycle/pedestrian paths. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm' 2 satisfies this criterion. Tree Farm 2 d Section 17.48.190, Drainage A. , 247-14-000244-C Min i um Req uiremerlts Drainage facilities shall be designed, and constructed to receive and/or transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central'' Oregon Stormwater Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental U, 247 14 -000245 -TP Page 106 o 14 Council and ail surface drainage water coming to and!or passing throuh the development or roadway. The system s development. hall be desig ri ed for maximum allowable FINDINGS: The applicant proposes a surface water drainage plan for The Tree Farm that would contain surface water on site through use of vegetated swales, roadside ditches, culverts,; and natural drainage ways. According to this plan, runoff would shed to vegetated''swaies with 3:1 slopes for on-site infiltration, or would enter a natural drainage way via a roadside ditch and culvert. The applicant states these culverts will be designed for a ten-year storm event, and infiltration facilities will be designed for a fifty-year storm event. The drainage plan notes that because of the site's topography, natural drainage patterns on The Tree Farm generally'' are toward Tumalo Creek to the west and to the undeveloped open space to the east. However, the applicant states none of the runoff from impervious areas such as roads and driveways will create any additional drainage contributions to Turalo Creek as no surface water will be, disposed'' of off-site. The applicant also proposes that if hydrological calculations determine additional runoff storage is needed, the applicant will construct a catch basin near the main en ry to The Tree Farm at S yrliners Road The Hearings Officer has found that prior to submitting for approval the final plat for any part of The Tree Farm, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit to the Panning Division a statement from a registered professional engineer stating whether an additional''' runoff storage basin is necessary, and if such a facility is determined to be necessary, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to show it on the final plat for Tree Farm 2 and to construct it. »I find that with imposition of this condition of approval Tree Farm 2 will, satisfy this criterion. Finally, the Hearings Officer finds the drainage plan for Tree Farm 2 need not be designed to serve the site with "maximum allowable development" — i,e., urban -density development on the UA -1 O zoned portion of the site —> inasmuch as the applicant intends that The Tree Farm never will be annexed into the Bend UB, and the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to record deed restrictions permanently prohibiting development on The Tree Farm open space tracts, Noncurbed Sections 1 Road culverts shall be concrete o minimum design life of 50 yaears. AU cross arger. Culverts shall be placed in natural d shall provide positive drainage. r etali' culverts shall be 18 inches in diameter or nag areas and FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farre 2 states culverts used for The Tree be corrugated metal pipe with a minimum fifty-year design life, and that two 18 -inch culverts and one 24 -inch culvert will be installed, The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to place all culverts in natural drainage areas and provide positive drainage. Farm wil Tr e Farre; 2, 247 4 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Fag e 10of 114 Drainage Swales. The Design Engineer is responsible to design a drainage swale adequate to control a design storm as defined in the Central Oregon Storm ater`''Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 states the drainage swales will be designed for a 50 -year storm event. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies this criterion, E. Drainage Plans. A complete set of drainage plans including hydraulic and hydrologic calculations shall be incorporates in all road improvement plans. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 2 includes a narrative description of its proposed drainage pan, and states complete modelling wili be performed and incorporated into the storm disposal infrastructure design during engineering and construction plan development. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to incorporate the drainage plan for Tree Farm 2 into the road irriprovement plan for Tree Farm 2, and to provide to the Planning Division a copy of that plan before submitting the Tree Farm final plat for approval. RN beca DI Drill H of es. Drill holes are prohibited. Injection well (drywellls) are way. prohibited in the public right -of - NS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal connplies with these criteria use no drill holes orinjection wells are proposed. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 satisfies. or with conditions of approval described above will satisfy, ali applicable criteria in Title 17. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS the FINDINGS; Comprehensive plans can be a potentia source of approval standards for quasi- judicial land use applications, The Flight Shop v. Deschutes County, Or LURA * (LUBA No. 2013-073, January 10, 2014). Even if a comprehensive plan provision does not constitute an independently applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant plan provisions pursuant to ordinances that require that the proposed land use be consistent with applicable plan provisions. See, Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006). Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that whether the county's comprehensive plans apply to Tree Farm 2 depends on whether their text and context, indicates they include mandatory standards, requirements, and/or considerations applicable to quasi-judicial develops ent approvals: F. De Fl N DI Tree F NG sch tes C S: Ti unty Comp e applicant a nd re en sive Pan''' ff identified the foliong pan provisions as a Chapter 2 Resource Management Section 247-14 000244 -CU, 247-14-000245-T ' pplicable Pag a108aof114> FlNDIN ap th€€ Goal ain dl n and nhance a d iversity of wild life and habitats. Policy 2.6.8, Balance protection of ildlife with wildland fire private lands in the designated Wildiand Urban Interface. a n on GS: The Hearings Officer finds this goal and policy are written in aspirational ter nd pear directed at the county rather than to applicants for land use approval.Therefore, 1, find n sa provisions are not applicable to Tree Farm 2. 2 Chapter 3 Goals a Rural Growth Management nd PI icier Goal 1`>.Maintain the ru Deschutes County. Policy 303.1.. The minimur be 10 acres° l character and safety of housing in unincorporated parcel size f€r new rural res i dential parcels shal FINDINGS The Hearings Officer finds this poli,cyis written in mandatory, terms suggesting it is applicable to Tree Farm 2. I have found Tree Farm 2 complies with the ten -acre minimu€rn size for lots or parcels in the RR -10 and UAR-1O Zones, and therefore l find it also is consistent with this plan policy Policy 303.4. Encourage new subdivisions development ment patterns, such a chaster devel community and environs ental'' impa .ts. to incorporate alters FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this policy rather than at an applicant for a quasi-judicial land applicable to Tree Farm 2. opment, aspirational and d use application, For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree county comprehensive plan goals and policies identified by G. Bend Area Gen 1 era Chapter 5. H Plan35 °using and Resid ent al >.Land that mit ative late €rected at the county therefore it is not and Farm 2 is con planning staff. sistent pith' applicable 36, Sidewalks shall be required''' in ail new residdntia dev&ioprnersts Separated >sidewalks shall be required, as practical,, on streets that provide or will provide access to schools, parks, or commercial areas. However, an alternative system of walkways' and trails that provide adequate pedestrian circulation may be approved FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this plan provision is written in mandatory terms suggesting it is applicable to Tree Farm 2. However, as discussed in the findings above, the applicant does not propose sidewalks,, and I have found they are not required in rural areas under Title 17. instead, the applicant proposes >>a network of paved multi -use paths along all new ti The Bend area>General 'Pian°apps€es to lands with;n the Bend urban area reserve. Tree Fara 2, 247-14-0t 244 -CU, 247.14 -000245 -TP Page 109 of 114 PUD roads. I find this path network constitutes an alternate; system that will prov'ide adequate pedestrian access within Tree F 2, and therefore it is consistent with this plan policy, 2 Cha pter 8: Pu blic Facilities and Services; 15. Dry wells or storm drains with appropriate water quality treatment using landscaping, retention ponds or other approved treatment controls shall be used for surface drainage control 16 The preservation and use of natural drainage ways for storm drainage shall be required', in new developments as much as possible. 20. Developments shall be designed to meet appropriate drainage quantity and quality requirements (e.g,, meeting the requirements of the City's National pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Storrnwater Permit, the City's Stormwater Master Plan and 1'ntegrated Stormwater Management Plan, and Total !Maximum Daily Load requirements). Low impact site designs shall be encouraged. Development on slopes in excess of 10 percent shall require special'' consideration to prevent construction -related and post -construction erasion. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officerfinds these plan provisions are written in mandatory terms suggesting they are applicable to public facilities and services in Tree Farm 2. As discussed in he findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposed drainage plan will dispose of stormwater through the use of vegetated swales, roadside ditches, culverts, and natural drainage ways. 1 find these methods will assure hat stormwater runoff infiltra es into native soil to the maximum degree possible and does not run off into Tumalo Creek or onto other off-site areas. For the foregoing reasons, i find the drainage plan for Tree Farm'2 is consistent with these plan policies. For the foregoing reasons the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 2 is consistent applicable urban area comprehensive plan policies identified by planning staff. V. D C1 il:1,s Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing DENIES the applicant's proposed conditional use, tentative pan, and site pi developrnent/ 'UD on the subject property, to be called Tree Farm 2 lith the Officer hereby' n for a duster in the event this decision is appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board' elects to hear the appeal and approves the applicant's proposal on appeal, the Hearings Officer Tree Fart 2, 24 .-14-000244-CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP Page 110 of 114 RECOMMEN APPROVAL: P RIO DS such approval b SU 13,1 ECT TO TH E FOLLOWI N G CO NDITIONS OF This approval for Tree Farm 2 is based upon the applicant's submitted tentative plan, si W plan, burden of proof statements, and written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the approved plan will require new land use applications and approvals: R TO SUBMITTING TH E FI NAL_ BDIVI ION PLAT FO R APPROVAL; 2;; The applicant/owner shall demonstrate to the Planning Division that conditions of approval for The Tree Farm lot fine adjustments have been met, The applicant/cwner shall submit to the Farm 2, Planning Division an pdated title report for Tree The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a copy, of nonrevocable deed restrictions for the Tree Farm 2 open space tract, stating that no portion of that tract shall be developed with a dwelling or other non -open space use in perpetuity, and that off-road motor vehicle use is prohibited. After county approval, the applicant/owner shall record these nonrevocable deed restrictions and shall provide copies of the recorded deed restrictions to the Planning Division. The applicant/owner shall record with the Deschutes Cod€nty Clerk the byl homeowner's association. The applicant/owner sha€I record with the Deschutes Co conditions and restrict€ons for Tree Farm 2. The applicant/owner shall Tree Farm 2. execute and record a Con my aws erk the coven ditions of Approve I Agree en the n fo The applicant/owner shall execute a€fid record with the Deschutes County Clerk a development agreement for the private roads in Tree Farm 2 on a form approved by Deschutes County Legal Counsel. The development agreement shall incorporate the drainage' plan' for Tree Farm 2; The applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded development agreement to the Planning, Division, The applicant/owner " shall submit to the Deschutes County Road Department for its review and approval` a draft Road Maintenance Agreement outlining the maintenance responsibilities, for all new roads in Tree Farm 2, and following road department approval the applicant/owner shall record the Road Maintenance Agreement with the Deschutes County Clerk 10. The applicant/owner shall record with the Deschutes County Clerk the wildfire plan and P for the Tree Farm 2 open space tract. The applicant/owner r shall provide copies of hese recorded management agreements to the Planning Divisio Tree F The applicant/owner shall obtain an approved septic site evaluation for each residential lot' in Tree Farm 2. m 2, 247.14 -000244 -CU 247 -14 -000249 --TP Page 111 f 114 12. The applicant/owner shah obtain access permit for the new road co The applicant/owner >.shal permit for the gates on th from the Deschutes County Road Depart rr en t an ynection to Skyliners Road in Tree Farm 1. obtain from the Deschutes County Road Department a gate e€ w secondary emergency access road for The Tree Farm. 14. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division proof of City of Bend approval to extend domestic water service to Tree Farm 2. If City of Bend water is not available, prior to final plat a proval for any Tree Farm development the applicant shallsubmit to the Planning Division proof that domestic water is available via the alternative means identified by the applicant. 15. If the applicant/owner elects, or is required to, provide water to The Tree Fare through, means other than extension of city water service, the applicant/owner shall provide to the Planning Division a water system analysis performed by a registered professional engineer and demonstrating water service from the alternative domestic water so€rarce will provide at each residential lot water pressure of at least 40 psi during peak demand periods, 20 psi residual pressure; and 2,000 gpm for fire flow. 16, The applicant./owner shall provide to the planning Division a statement from a registered professional engineer indicating hether a runoff storage basin is necessary. 17 The a Bend em pplio Fire ant/owner shall submit to the Panning Division written verif ation from the econdary Department that all standards for subdivision roads, including the ergency acce road, have been met, 18. The applicant/owner shall pay all taxes for Tree Farm 2 in accordance with OR WITH OR ON THE FINAL B u B DMS 10 N PLAT: S 92.095, 19 The applicant/owner shall prepare the final plat for Tree Farm 2 in accordance with Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, including all the necessary information required by Section 17.24.060. 20. The a p plicant/owner shall sh ow the following on the fine plat for Tree Farm 2 the exact lot size of each <residential lot, and of the open space tract which shay be platted as a separate tract; the building envelope for each lot; all easements of record and d; a statement of water rig al all utility ease rents;' public acces ea existing rights-of-way; hts as required,<by ORS 92.1''20; sem€ents; and if a runoff storage basin is,,necessary, the location of the Tree Fara 2. 247-14-1 0 244 -CU. 247.14 -000245 -TP torage basin. Page 112 of 114 21. The surveyor or registered professional engineer submitting the final plat for Tree Farre 2 shall submit information to the Deschutes County Road Department showing the location of any existing roads in relationship to the road right-of-way. 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 reed improvements are to be located within legally' established or dedicated right-of-ways. In no case shall a road improvement be located outside of a dedicated road right-of-way. If research reveals that inadequate right -of -fay exists or that the existing roadway is outside of the legally established or dedicated right- of-way, additional right-of-way will be dedicated as directed by the Deschutes County Road Department to meet current county standards. 22 The final plat for Tree Farm 2 shall be signed by all persons with an ownership interest in the property, as well as the Deschutes County Assessor and Tax, Collector. P RIOR TO 0 R WITH CONST 23 l -he applicant owner of all construction plans any construction. P V CTION: hall obtain from the Deschutes County Road Department approval or all required road improvements prior to commencement of 24. AH private road designs shall be in accordance with the standards in Cha Table "A" of the Deschutes County Code for rural local private roads. 25 All private roads constructed in Tree Farm as proposed on the tentative subdivision pia pter 17.4 a nd 2 shall include bicycle and pedestrian paths n and burden of proof. 26. The applicant/owner" shall construct all road improvements under the inspection and approval of the Deschutes County Road Department. The road department may accept certification of improvements by, a registered professional engineer pursuant to ORS 92.097. 27 The applicant/owner shall assure that all road improvemen surveyed and staked in accordance with DCC 17.48.200 The applicant/owner shall positive drainage. place al culverts in natural d is in Tree rainage If a runoff storage basin is determined to be necessary, the construct such a basin at the lowest point in Tree Farm 1, o determined to be appropriate by a registered professional eng 30. The ap plicantlowner shall install all 31; The applica each road. utilities un derg round,, eas applicant ch othe r in su neer; Far are and provide wner sh location ntiowner shall install at least one road name sign at each intersection for 02! If the applicant/owner provides domestic water service to Tree Farm 2 through extension of and connection to the City of Bend water system, the applicant/owner sha'1I construct all required water lines to the city's standards and specifications therefor. Tree Farm 2, 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 241 -14 -000245 -TP Pag e 11 3 of 114 The applicant/owner shall>install on the residential lot side of the gate at the southern terminus of Sage Steppe Drive at least one means of opening the gate by Tree Farm residents and guests such as special keys. key codes and/or automatic, gates. FOL OWI N G FI NAL 'P LAT A PPROVAL: 34 The applicant/owner shall begin construction of Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 within six months of the date this decision becomes final, or such longer period of time as the Planning Director may allow. AT ALL TI M ES: 35. The applicant/owner shall, satisfy all requirements of the Bend Fire Department for ire protection within Tree Farm 2`. 35 The applicant/owner shall limit uses permitted in the Tree Fara 2 open space tract to management of natural resources, trail' systems, and low -intensity outdoor•• recreation uses, and shall prohibit golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, ski runs or other developed recreational uses of similar intensity and off-road vehicle use on the open space tract. The applicant/owner shall enforce these open space restrictions and prohibitions through the Tree Farm 2 covenants, conditions and restrictions. 37 The applicant!owner shall install any fencing in the A zon accordance with the WA Zone standards therefor., ed portion of ree Farm 2 in The applicant/owner shall a sure'the building height and setback standards in the UAR- 10, RR -10 and WA -10 Zones are met for dwellings in Tree Fara 2. 39. The applicant/owner shall assure that address numbers are provided for each dwelling in Tree Fara 2 as required by the Oregon Fire Code. DU RATIO N OF APPROVAL:: 40. The applicant/owner shall <complete all conditions of approval and apply for final plat approval from the Planning Division for Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final. or obtain an extension the approval in this decision in accordance with the provisions of Title 22 of the County Code, or the approval shall be void. Dated this 18th day of €March , 2015 TH UN IS DECISION B ECOME LESS APPEALS ed this 18 day of March, 2015 5 FINAL TWELVE (12) DAYS AFT D BY A PARTY OF TINTEREST. Tree Farm 2, 247-14-000244-C , 247 -14 -000245 -TP ER THE DATE OF Al 0, Page 114 of 114 Com on ty Plattednet Deve lopmen # Safety D#v3s3 De Pa me nt nvfronmen4R3 o s Diva CE RT P.O. Box 6005 117 NW>.Lafayette Avenue GerEi, Oregon 97708-600E (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385.1764 MATE E NU DOCU M OF Ai NG B RS 247 -14 -000242 -CU, 243 -TP ENTS MAI MAP/TAX LOT certify March 18, '''2015 address(es) set N t M B 247 -14 -000244 -CU. 245 -TP 247 -14 -000246 -Cts, 247 -TP'' 247 -14 -000246 -CU, 249 -TP 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 251 -TP LED: H ER Barin gs Officer Decisions — Tree Fara S: 17-11-35 D 00--04€ 0; 17-11-6002, 6205, 62 6208, 6209. 6210, 6211, 6212 and 6213 1'? t hru 07,, that on the 18th day of March 2015, the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated wall ere mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and f: rth on the attached list,. COM Dated this 1; th day o M u rc&�, 2015, MTV DEVE By: Romy lar The Tree Farre, LLC 409 NW Franklin Avenue Bend, OR 97701 ensen Ken Pirie Ia ker Macy SW Oak Bt #200 Portland, OR 97204 Jeffrey Condit ft/filler Nash LLP 3400 U Bancorp Tower 111 BW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 972€ 4-3699` Quality Se 0 P ig ENT DEPART ht B PO ENT Charley Miller Miller Tree Farm 110 NE Greenwood Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Ron Hand WHPacific 123 SW Columbia Street Bend', OR 97702 Dale Van Va kenburg' Brooks Resources Corporation 409 NW Franklin Avenue Bend; OR 97701 rvices, Performed with !'Pridef Connie Peterson 2203 NW Clearwater Drive Bend, OR 97701-2203 Doug Wickham 1971 Kildonan Court Bend, OR 97702 Corey Heath & Nancy Bruener Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 61374 Barrell Road Bend, OR 97702 MichelleHealy'& Steve Jorgensen Bend Metro Parks and Recreation 799 SW Columbia Street Bend, OR 97702 D Myles Conway Marten Law 404 SW Columbia Street. Suite 212, Bend, OR 97702 Al' Johns 2522 NW Crossing Bend, OR 97701 on D rive Kelly Esterbrook 16322 Skyliners Road Bend, OR 97701 strict Paul Dewey 1539 NW Vicksburg Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Bhristin 2281 Bend; e Herrick NW High Lakes Loop OR 97701 Larry Medira Bend Fire Department 1212 SW Simpson, Suite B Bend, OR 97702 Jennifer Taylor & Christine Polled` 19001 Squirreltail Loop Bend, OR 97701 George Weurthner P.O. Box 8359 Bend, OR 9770 8 Edward & Lynn Funk 2138 Toussaint Drive Bend, OR 97701 Deschi tes ounty Ed Keith, Forester George Kolb, Road Depart Peter Russell, CDD