HomeMy WebLinkAboutHO Decision - Tree Farm 5FILE NU
APPUI
M
B
DEC
ERS:
CANT:
IS
PROPERTY OWNS
ON OF DE CH
UTES CO
247-14-00
025
UNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
0-C
U, 247-14-00
The Tree Farm LLC
409 N.W. Franklin Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
R: Miller Tree Farm
110 N, F. Greenwood Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
APPLICANT'S
NT'
ATTORNEY: Jeffrey G. Condit -; Miller Nash
111 S.W. 5th Avenue, Suite 340
Portland, Oregon 97204
OPPONENTS'
ATTORNEYS:
REQ
u
EST:
STAFF R
H
''VI
EWE
EARING DATES
RECO
RD CLOS
E
Do
0251 -TP
L
Myles A. Conway - Marten Law
404 S,W, Columbia Street, Suite 212
Bend, Oregon 97702
Attorney for Rio Lebo Investments
Paul Dewey M Central Oregon Land' atch
50 S.W. Bond Street, Ste.
Bend, Oregon 97702
Attorney for Central Oregon L ndW teh
The applicant requests conditional use, tentative plan and site
plan approval for a ten -lot cluster/planned unit develops ent (PUD)
on a 107.0 -acre parcel in the RR -10 and WA Zones north of
Skyliners Road and west of Skyline Ranch Road on the west side
of Bend. This proposal is Identified as "Tree Farm 5 " It is part,,
of a proposed 50 -lot diluter/PUD on five contiguous legal lots
totaling approximately 533 acres, identified as "The Tree Farm."
The applicant submitted four other applications for The Tree Farm
(Tree Fares 1, 2, <3 and 4), with the following file numbers
Tree'. Farm 1.. 247 -14 -000242 -CU, 247 -14 -000243 -TP
Tree Farm 2. 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 247 -14 -000245 -TP
Tree Farm 3.. 247 -14 -000246 -CU, 247 -14 -000247 -TP
Tree Farm 4: 247 -14 -000248 -CU, 247 -14 -000249 -TP,
Anthony
I
Raguine, Senior Planner
ovember 6 and 20, 2
Ja
n
ua
ry 13, 2015
Tree Farm 5, 247>-14-000250-C , 4 -000251 -TP
014
Page `1' of 91
.APP I..ICA LE TANDARD AND CRIT RIA'
Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, the 8
Chapter 17.
08, Definition
sand 'kte
u
bdiviaion/Pa
rpretation of
Section 17.05.630, Definitions Generally
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision
Development Plan
Section 17.16.100, Required 'Findings for A
*'Section 17,16,105, Access to Subdivisions
* Section 17.16.115, Traffic Impact Studies
Chapter 17.3
6, Design Standards
an
rliti rs Ordinanc
g
as
Tentative'
p
pre
a
ns a
Ind baster
Section 17.36.020, Streets
*Section 17.36.040, Existing Streets
* Section 17.36.050, Continuation of Streets
* Section 17.36.060, Minimum Right -of -Way and Roadway Width
• Section 17.36.€ 70, Future Resubdivialon
• Section 17.36.080, Future Extension of Streets
* Section 17.36.100, Frontage Roads
* Section 17.36.110, Streets Adjacent to Railroads, Freeway and>Parkways
* Section 17.36.120, Street Names
* Section 17.36.130, Sidewalks
* Section 17.36.140, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit R guirements
* Section 17.36.150, Blocks
* Section 17.36,160, Easements
*Section 17.36.170, Lots — Sze and Shape
* Section 17.36,160, 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
* Secton 17.36.260, Fire Hazards
*"Section 17.36.280, Water and Sewer Lines
* Section 17.36.290, individual Wells
*''Section 17.36.300, Public Water System
4. Cha
Fite
r 17.44, Park Development
* Section 17.44.010, Dedication of Land
Section 17.44.020, Fee in Lieu of Dedication
5.
5, Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction 5
* Section 1
* Section 1
7,48.140, Bikeways
7.48.160, Road Deve
Tree Farm 5, ; 47 -14 -000250 -CU, 247-14- 300251-T
pment R
pecifications
equire
en
s -- Stan
d
a
d
Page 2of91
Ti
esti
ecti
on 17,48.180, Private Roads
on 17.48.190, Drainage
tie 10 of the
Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ord
1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Deflniti
* 'Section 18,04,030,, Definitions
Chapter 13.6
ons
0. Rural Residential Zone — RR i0
* Section 18.60.030, Conditional Uses Permitted
*Section 18 60.040, Yard and Setback Requirements
* Section 18,60,000, Dimensional Standards
Chapter 10,88, Wild
life Area Combini
Zone—,
* Section 10.88.010, Purpose
* Section 13.33,020, Application of Provisions
*'Section 18.88.040, Uses Permitted Condition
*"Section 10,80,050, Dimensional Standards
*Section 18.68°060, Siting Standards
*Section 10,80.070, Fence Standards
c
bapter 18,12
Gond
itional Uses
ally,'
*'Section 10,128.01 , General Standards Gove
* Section 13,128 040, Specific Use Standards
* Section 18 128,200, Cluster Development (Si
Only)
* Section 18.123,210, Planned>Developnnent
rral'ng
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Cod
1.
ha
pter 22,04
l ntrod
e, the Dev&lo
ucfion and Definitions
Section 22.04.020, Defi
2. Chapte
nitions
r 22.0
8, Gen
era
Provisions
Conditional
finance;
se
nle-Family Residential Uses
pane
rat Procedu
* Section 22.03.020, Acceptance of Application
* Section 22.00,030, incomplete Applications,
Section 22.08.030, False Statements on Application
Documents
'
Section 22.03.070, Time Computation
Chapter 22.20
* 8
c
, Review of Land Use Action Ap
action 22.20.05
pliafio
5, Modification of Application
hapten 22 24 Land Use Action
Tree Farm 5, 247-14-00025 U, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
00251 -TP
Hearings
a
s
es Ordinance
and Supporting
Page 3of91
Section 22.24A 40, C
nuances and Record Extensions
D schutes County Comprehensive Plan,,
c
hapter 2
Oregon Admi
Development
Resource Manag
ement
raistrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 660, Land Co .servation and
omni ssion
1. Division 4, Goal 2
* OAR 660-004-0
Residential Areas
Exceptions Process
040
(7), Application of Goal
Division 11, Public Facilities P1a
* OAR 66
0-011
-0065, VVa
ronin
g
14 (Urbanization' to R
ter Service to Rural Lands
It>' FlNDlN S OF FACT.:
A, Location: The, Tree Farm including Tree Farm 5 has an ass! ne
Bkyliners Road, Bend. The Tree Farm consists of, Tax Lots 6202
6209" 6210, 6211 and 6213 on Deschutes County Assessors Map 1
u
a
d address of 1890€3
, 6205, 6207, 62€ 3,
7-11.
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 Tumaio Deer Winter- Range, and are designated Rural Residential, Exception
Area (RREA) on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan reap. The eastern
approximately 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 Plan map.
Tree Farm 5 is zoned P.P.-10 and WA and is designated RREA.
Site Description; The Tree Farm, of which the proposed Tree Farm 5 is a part, is
approximately 533 acres in size, irregular in shape, vacant, and with varying topography
The dominant topographical feature is a ridge ra. nning southwest to northeast forming
the southeast rim of Tunalo Creek Canyon. The top of this ridge is generally flat to
rolling, with steeper slopes in he northwest where it drops off toward Tunalo Creek.
There are views of the Cascade Mountains from the western part of this centre l ridge
and views of Bend from the southeast side of the central ridge. The property has
scattered rock outc€ops. 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 Turnalo Creek;
the eastern part drains east to the Deschutes River.1
The western portion cat The. l me Farm is covered with _a nature 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
The Tree Farm topography is described in d
December 8, 2014, and included in the record.
e
€i in th
H
earings Office "s
ite visit report
dated
Tree Farm! 5, 247>> -14 -000250 -CU, 247-14--000251-TP" Page 4 of 91
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 l observed them during my site visit. The
applicant proposes to obliterate much of this dart road network and to revegetate the old
road beds. The property has wire fencing, most of which would be removed.
Tree Farm 5 is 107.6 acres in size and is the most western of the five clyster/PLDs'
making up The Tree Farm. It abuts Tree Farms 3 and 4 on the east, Shevlin Park on the
west, Skyliners' Road on the south, and undeveloped UAR-13 zoned property on the
north and northeast.
Su
rrounding Zoning and Land Uses
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), and is zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C), Near the
southwest corner of the subject property is the City of Bend's Outback Water Facility,
consist ng of groundwater wells, pumps, above -ground water storage facilities, and
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 Shevlin 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
Barest -zoned parcels to the northwest of Shevlin Park are much smaller.
North. To the >>north of The Tree Farm is a 376 -acre tract of vacant land zoned UAR-10
and owned by Rio Lobo Investments LLC (Rio Lobo).
East. To the east are Tree Farms 1, 2. 3 and 4, and vacant land owned by tiller Tree
Farm and zoned UAR-10. Farther east are three public schools within the Bend-LaPine
School District (school district) . Miller 'School, Pacific Crest Middle School
(under construction), and Summit High >School. The, schools are located within the Bend
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and city limits and are zoned Public Facilities (PF). Also
to the east within the Bend UGB is NorthWest 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;Skyliners Road is The H!€ghlan s at Broken A1Top PUO,
zoned UAP -10 and developed with thirty-seven roughly > 10 -acre lots with dwellings.
Farther southeast is the Tetherow Destination Resort developed with sss dwellings, a golf'
course, and a lodge.
Tree Farr? 5, 247 4 -000250 -CU, 247.14 -000251 -TP" Page 5 of 9
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. Approximately the eastern half of The Tree Farm was in the path of
the 1990 Awbrey Hall Fire which ''burned several tho €s and 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 lots of record (LR -14.13, LR -14-17, LR -14-13, 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 -14-26 . Deeds reflecting
the adjusted boundaries of the five legal dots 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 information 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 wi hin 30 days of the date the applications were submitted, as
required by ORS 21.427(2) and Section 22.08,030 of the Development Procedures
Ordinance, the county considers the applications to have been deemed complete on
September 5, 2014. Therefore, the 150 day period far iss€.aance of a fin& local and use
decision under ORS 215A27 would have expired on February 2, 2014.
A consolidated public hearing on the five Tree Farre applications was scheduled for
November 6, 2014. On November 4, 2014, the Hearings Officer conducted a site visit to
the subject property accompanied by Senior, Panner 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, 2€ 14, 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.
"tree Fa rn 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU 247 -14 -000251 -TP Page of 91`
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, 2018 i
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/PUD to be called The Tree Farm ori approximately 533 acres
west of the Bend t B. 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-ways. The boundaries of the five cluster/PUDs coincide' with the
boundaries of the five legal ;lots of record recently reconfigured through the
aforementioned lot lire adjustments. Each clusterrPUD would have ten -acre residential
lots, an open space tract, segments of the public and private road system, and mixed-
use trails connecting, to trails in Shevlin Park and the DNF. Tree Farms 1 through 4
would include land in the UAR-10, RR -10 and WA Zones. Tree Farm 5 would'' be located
entirely within the RR -10 a€1d WA Zones.
The subject application is for Tree Farm 5, consisting of 107.6 acres with ten dwellings
on ten 2 -acre lots (Lots 41-50) clustered along the eastern boundary of Tree Farm 5 in
the western portion of The Tree Farm. Tree Farm 5 would have an 87.4 -acre open
space tract and 0.2 acres of right-of-way.3 The residential lots in The Tree Farm would
have access to Bkyliners Road, a county collector road, via one public road, Sage
Steppe Drive, and five new private roads — Tree Farm Drive, Ridgeline Drive, Rldgeline
Court, Golden Mantle Loop, and Canopy Court -- over which the applicant proposes to
dedicate permanent public access easements. Tree Farm Drive, Golden Mantle Loop
and Rid€gellne Drive in Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3`>.would comprise the main PUD road. The
applicant proposes to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to establish this road
Access to the residential lots in Tree Farms 4 and 5 would' be from Skyliners Road, 'Tree,
Farm Drive, Golden Mantle Loop, and Canopy Court
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 UB that connects to Bkyliners Road.
2 Becar
weekend
5
the 150th day falls on Saturday Apr 11, 2015, and because under < Section 22.08.070
nd holidays are excluded from Berle c;or; putations, the 11501h day is April 13, 2015.
s Tree Farms 1, 2, 3 and 4 would have th
e foils
racteristics:
-tree Farm 1: Lots 1-10; 105.3 acres total; 81.1 acres of open spa
be in the RR-`'0/NVA Ion . s, and 4.2 acres of right-of-way,
Tree Farm 2. Lots 11-20; 104.2 acres total; 82.8 acres of open space, of which 67.7
be in the RR-10/WA Zones, and 1,4 acres of right-of-way;
Tree Farm 3: Lots 21-30; 106 9 acres total; 83.8 acres of open space. of which 82 ac
in the RR -1 WJA Zones; and 3.1 acres of right-of-way; and
Tree Farre 4: Lots 31-40; 109.5 acres total; 87.7 acres of; open space,
be in the RR -1€ NVA Zones; and 1.7 acres of right-of-way.
�f which 39.9 acres would
acres would
Tree Farr » 8, 247--14-00828
0 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
would
be
f which 85.7 acres would
Page 7of91'
The emergencyaccessLid operate until the Mille r Tree Far ry€ property is developed
with public roads to which Sage Steppe Drive would connect.'''''
Lots in Tree Farm 5 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 Avion Water Company; or
(3) water pumped from one or more private groundwater wells on The Tree 'Paan and/or
the ad'acent Miller Tree Farm property{, Tree Farm 5 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 5 open space tract
would be, subject to deed restrictions preventing future development thereon.
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 Planner, and Forester; the City of Bend Fire
Depart€pie it (fire department); the park district; and the Oregon Department of Fish and
t'ildlife (ODP `). These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 3-9 of the Tree Farm
4 staff report and are included in the record. The following agencies either did not
respond to the request for comments or submitted no comment" responses: the
Deschutes County Environmental Boils Division, Assessor, and Surveyor; the City of
Bend Planning Division, Engineering Division, and, Public Works Department (public
works); the UFS DNF; the Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-
District 11; the school district, Bend Broadband; Cascade Natural Gas; Century ink; and
Pacific Power. Agency comments are addressed in the findings below.
Public Comments: 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 mailed to the owners of twenty-sic tax lots, In addition, notice of the initial
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 5is a legal lot' of record pursuant to a
2014 lot-of-record determination (LR-14-20). The current configuration of Tree Farm 5 is
the result of a series of 2014 lot line adjustments (LL-14-17 through LL-14-26).
4 The tentative pan for Tree Farm 1 also shows potential right-of-way for future extension of Skyline
Ranch Road, a designated county collector dedicated and improved in north and south of the Miller Tree
Farm and Rio Lobo properties. The potential right-of-way would extend north from Crosby Drive through
the Miller Tree Farm property and the northeast corner of Tree Farm 1 and onto the Rio Lobo;. property.
Tree Fara 5, 247-14-OOO25O-CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 8 o 91
qplicLusioNs OF LA
A. SUMMARY:
The Hearings Officer has found that with two significant exceptions, Tree Farm 5 satisfies, or
with inn position of conditions of approval will satisfy, the applicable approval criteria in the
relevant administrative rule and the provisions of Title 17, 18, 19 and 22 of the Deschutes
County Code I have found the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with a number of
criteria related to wildlife habitat and wildfire risks. Specifically,, € have found the applicant's
proposed Wildlife Assessment and !Management Plan (WMP) and Wildfire Protectian and
Management Plan (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;, 5. 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, !' 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.
B.
P
R
ELI
MINARY IS
SUES:
1. Completeness and Status of,
pplication.
FINDINGS: In June of 2014, the county issued lot -of -record deters inatio s written by Associate
Planner Cynthia Srnidt and confirming the existence of five legal ots of record comprising The
Tree Farm ((LR -14-16 through LR -14-20). Ms. Smidt also issued a series of decisions approving
lot fine adjustments for the five legal lots of record creating the current configurations of the five
Tree Farm developments (LL -14-17 through LL -14-26). Each of the lot -line- djustment
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
newly reconfigured lots; (4) recording new deeds reflecting the new lot configurations;, (5) 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.
The record indicates the deeds required pursuant to Condition 4 of the lot -line -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
Raguine'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 Romy
Mortensen to Ms. Smidt, copied to Mr. FRagu€ne 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 tot 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 22.0
8.03
5 of the development proved
res ordinance state
Tree Farm 5. 247<-14-00025 -CU, 247.14 -000251 -TP" Page 9 of 91
If the applicant or the applicant's representative or apparent representative makes
isstteent 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 material to acceptance
or approval of the Tree Farm,applications,— Le. the legal status and configuration of the five lots
comprising the five proposed Tree Farm developments. However, 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 I 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, I find I may consider' The Tree Farm applications.
Nevertheless, I find that to assure all lot -line -adjustment conditions of approval are satisfied, the
applicant will be required as a condition of approval, and before submitting the final plat of any
Tree Fare development for approval, to demonstrate to the Planning Division that all such
conditions have been met
2. plod
ification'>;of A
ppllcation.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings be ow 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 5. Several exceptions were identified in the applicant's
burden of proof, and several additional exceptions were requested through subsequent
correspondence from the applicant.
Section 22.20.055 allows an applicant to modify an application up to the close of the record, but
prohibits the Hearings Officer from considering a modification without the filing of a modification
application. Section 22.20.055(D) authorizes me to determine whether an applicant's
submission constitute a modification, defined in Section 22.04.020 as:
* the applicant's submittal of new information after an application has been
deemed complete and prior to the close of the record on a pending application
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 (incuding but not limited to changes in
setbacks, access points, building design, size or orientation, parking, traff€c, 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,
thereof, submitted following the date the application WaS deemed complete do not constitute
modifications. That is because they do not change the development 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 find they 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.
Tree Farre 5, 247 i4 -000250 -CIU. 247,14 -0002.5 -TP Page 10 of 91
Effect of Split Zon
big
FINDINGS: S: The Tree Farm includes land in three zones _m R-10, ; and UAR-1 €O �y
established and governed by three separate zoning ordinances -'Title 18 (RR -10 and WA) and
Title 19 (UAB -1O). In the Hearings Officer's decisions in Tree Farms 1 through 4, l made
findings concerning how these three zones would be addressed considering this split zoning;
the complexity of The Tree >>Farm applications, and the large number of applicable standards
and criteria in Titles 18 and 19. I found l must determine 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-1O Zones, respectively, would allow meaningful review of each cluster/PUD as >;a whole. I
found it would not, and therefore where feasible and appropriate for Tree Farms 1 through, 4,
would apply the provisions of both the UAR-10 and, RR 10 Zones to each cluster/PUD as a
whsle. Because Tree Farm 5 is located entirely within the RR -1 and WA Zones, l will riot review
it under the provjisions of the ''UAR-1 O Zone or the Bend Area Genera Plan
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
B
Oregon Administrative R
Commission
ides, Cha
Ater
60, Lan
d Con
e
rva
tion and
Develo
prnent
Division 4, Goal 2 Exceptions'Proces
OAR 660-004-0040, Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas
(1)
(2)
The purpose of this rule is to specify how Statewide Planning
Goal 14, Urbanization, applies to rural 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 hi this as
rural residential areas,
(b) Sections (1) to (8) of this rule do not appy to the creation
of a tot or parcel, or to the development or use of one single-
family home on such lot or parcel, where the application for
partition or subdivision was filed with the Kcal government'
and deemed to be, complete; in accordance with ORS
215.427(3) before the effective date of Section (1) to (8) of this
rule,
(c) This
through
(A)
rule does not apply to
(H) of this subsections
land inside an ac
b
oundary;
Trey Fara , 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247`14-00 251 -TP
ypes 0
and listed
in (A)
knowledged urban growth
Page 11
of 91
and inside an acknowledg
ed
unity boundary established pu
Chapter 660, Division, 022;
ed unincorporated
(C) land''' in a
established
021;
acknowledged
pursuant to OAR Cha
urban
rsua
nt to OAR
reserve area
pter 660, Division
(D) and in acknowledged destination
pursuant to applicable land use state
(E) resource l'
(F)
d as d
efin
ed
n OA
e
stables
tes and goals;
R 660-004-0005(2
nonresource land, as defined in OAR 66
(G) marginal land, as defined
Edition;
0-004-00
)s
5(3);
£l
hed
in ORS 197.247, 1991
(H) and planned and zoned prima
commercial or ,public <use.
ily for ru
ind
striae
FINDINGS: The applicant and staff identifiers this administrative rue as applicable to Tree Farm
5 because the proposed cluster/PUD is on land located outside the Bend UGB, zoned RR -10>'
and' `A, and designated RREA. The Hearings Officer is aware the county's RR -10 zoned lands
were acknowledged as exception areas at the time the county's comprehensive pian initially
was acknowledged in 1979. Therefore, l find he RR -10 zoned land within The Tree Fare
constitutes a "rural residential area'' subject to this administrative rule because it is not included
in any of the exceptions in Paragraph (2) (c).
(7)
(a) The creation of any new of or parcel smaller than two
acres in a rural 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 al l> provisions of this rule.
(b) Each local government m specify a minimum area for
any new lot or parcel that is to be created in a rura residential
area. For the purposes of this rale, 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 shall equal or
exceed that minimum lot size which is al'ready in effect.
(d) lf, 0
land'' use
n the effe
ctive date of this rule, a local government's
Mations specify a minimum lot size smaller than
Tree F , 217 -i4 -000250 -Cis, 247 -14 -009251 -TP
feud 12 f 91
two acres, the area of any new
eq
ual or exceed two acres.
of or parcel created shall
e) A local government may authorize a planned snit
development (PUD), specifythe size of lots or parcels by
averaging density across a parent' parcel, or allow clustering,
of new dwellings In a rura residential area only if all
condition ' set forth in paragraphs (7)(e)(A) through (7)(e)(H)
are met:
A. The num
develope
ber of new dwelling units to be clustered or
d as a PUD does not exceed 10.
FINDINGS: Each of the ten proposed residential lots in Tree Farm 5 would be at least two acres,
in size, and the lots would be clustered along the eastern border of Tree Farm 5 and in, the
western part of The Tree Farm. As discussed above, Tree Farm 5 would' be one of five
contiguous clusterIPUDs comprising The Tree Farm, and establishing a total of 50 dwellings on
approximately 533 acres.
The applicants five burden of proof statements assert each subdivision can be approved as a
stand-alone development. The Hearings Officer disagrees. l find the five cluster,PUDs
effectively would function as a single development because each cluster/PUD is dependent on
one or more of the other cluster/PUDs for roads and other infrastructure. For example,, Tree
Farm 5 lots will not have access to Skyliners Road without concurrent development of Tree
Farms 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the main PUD road.
The applicant appears to have chosen to develop The Tree Farm through five separate
cluster/ 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
€ €se regulations that prohibits it. Each individual > Tree Farm development is a legal lot of record,5
and the applicant is entitled to develop each legal lot of record consistent with applicable zoning
ordinance(s) and the subdivision/partition ordinance. I 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 cluster/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 to existing, roads and
other infrastructure before final plat' approval'.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 d
maximum number of dwelling units for a cluster/PUD under this administrat
B
The nur ber of new lots or pa
not exceed 10.
oes not exceed the,
ve rule
rcels to be created does
5 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 Iine adjustrents
creating the proposed configurations for Tree Farms 1 through 5 have been met before final plat approval
for any of the Tree Farm developments
Tree Farm 5, 247-14--000250--CU, 247.14-i 00251 -IP>
Pa
ge
3of91
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes ten new residential lots in Tree Farm 5. Staff questioned
whether the applicant's proposed open space tract must be counted as a lot for purposes of the
maximum density calculation. Staff discussed this question with the applicant and with Jon
Jinnings, >>Corr€rnu€nity Services Specialist with the Department of of Land Conservation and
Development ( LCD). Based on those conversations, staff concluded the ten -lot maximum
applies only to new residential lots and not to the proposed open space tract. In an October 27,
2014 electronic mall message, the applicant's attorney Jeffrey Condit agreed with staffs
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 construed to avoid a
conflict rather than create one. The rule (subsection 7(e)) allows up to ten,
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)(B), then an applicant will never be able to
construct more than 9 dwellings, which will violate the express text of the rule. It
^gill be possible, of course, to include the common area within the boundary of
one of the ten parcels, and limit 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 lore -term
protection to the open space parcel.) l think the better reading, which doesn't
create a conflict or a 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 7(h) allows
an additional unbuildable lot, parcel or tract' restricted to open space as long as
the requirements in that section are ret. This is the only interpretation that
reconciles potential conflicts and makes overall sense when read in context.
irk 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 UAR-10 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, x x x First, the express purpose of
the PUC' 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 t
vast majority of the property in an open space tract is the chief public benefit ti
justifies the exception to the standard. Second, DCC 19.104.070 provides that
'dei 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 P€.)) 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 Para 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
I the
Tree Farr 5, 247'-14-000250€-C , 247< -14 -00O251 -TP Page 14 of 91
ti t dog not affect compliance with the requirements of tine PUD Code (and is a
very common practice in planned developments)."
The Hearings Officer concurs with tlr. Condit's>analysis.
Tree Farm 5 is not counted in the ten -lot maximum, an
ten residential lots does not exceed, that maximum.
Fl
N
DINGS: Al
eside
d
find the;, proposed open space tract in
therefore the applicant's proposal for
Ca None of the new lots or
two acres.
tial lets i
n Tree Farm 5
II
parcels will be s tslier than
be two acres in size, satisfying this criterion.
D. The development is not to be weaved by a new
community sewer system
law 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 Farm 5 with;
individual on-site septic systems, therefore satisfying these criteria.
The overall density of the development;, ill not exceed
one dwelling for each .snit of acreage specified hi the
local government's land'''' use regulations on the
effective date of this rule as the minimum lot size for
t
he area.
FINDINGS: The FSR -10 Zone in which Tree Farm 5 is located establishes a general density of
one lot per ten acres under Section 18.60.60. The RR 10 Zone permits higher density for
cluster/PUDs through Section 18.60.60. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the
10 -lot maximum density in the administrative rule applies to residentiat 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, units will
not force a significant change in accepted farm 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.
FIND lNGS:
Farm Use, The record indicates there are no nearby lands devoted to farm;, use and n i
practices occurring on nearby lands. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 will not
force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost at, accepted farm practices on
nearby lands devoted to farm use,
Tree Farrn 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247.14 -000251 -TP Page 15 of 91
Forest Use.
Required 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 clusterlPUD 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 forest land in the DNF is located southwest across,
Skyliners''Road. In addition, private forest land is located west and northwest of Shevlin Park.
The DNF forest lands are managed by the USS 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 dock" of public forest land conveyed by the USFS to private owners. The largest'
of these private forest land holdings was owned and managed by Cascade Timberlands, and
according to Assessor's data consists of 17 tax lots totaling approximately 33,000 acres.'
Assessor's data indicate there are several smaller private forest -zoned parcels northwest of
Shevlin Park, some of which' have dwell in s,8'''
The Hearings Officer finds I must 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 burns, can extend beyond
adjacent properties, the appropriate study area should include ''both DNF lands and private'
forest lands west and northwest of Sheviin Park. However, the administrative rule requires en
analysis of impacts on "nearby" lands devoted to forest use. The 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. 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
tier 18 04.030 defines 'forest lands"' and "forest uses" as fol
"Forest lands"` means lands which are suitable for commercial fore
adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operation
other forested lands that maintain soil air, water and fish and wildlife
t
uses includin
or practices an
rces.
u
"Forest uses" include production of trees and the processing of forest prod
space; buffers from nose and visual separation of conflicting uses;watershed
and wildlife and fisheries habitat; soil protection from wind and water; maint
clean air and water; outdoor recreational activity and related support sery
wilderness values compatible with these uses; and grazing for livestock.
g
d
ucts; opens
giro Lection
' The Hearings Officer is aware that after the close of the record Cascade Tirmrberlands sold its D
County holdings. l will continue>to refer to these lands as Cascade Timberlands property.
8 The Hearings Officer finds 1 may take official notice of data collected and maintained by the D
County Ass essor`concernincg real property in Deschutes County:.
4
This study area is equivalent to the county's one -mile -radius study
conditional' use approval' requiring a similar analysis of the impact from such
practices in the surrounding area.
Tree Farm 5, 247-1.4-00025 U 247 -14 -000251 -TP
eschute
ea for nonfarm dw
dwelling on accepted
Mage
tes
lino
r-
6of91
Accepted Forest Practices on Nearby Lands Devoted to Forest Use.
1. Deschutes National Forest. The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 notes the
portion of the DNF southwest of The Tree Farm includes the heavily -used "Phil's Tral1" mountain,
biking trail,' network, The burden of proof goes on to state:
"The 1990 Deschutes National Forest plan (as amended identifies 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 € aintain or enhance their appearance. The proposed
trail network will provide a variety of scenic vistas for visitors. The proposed
1 o€nesites in The Tree Farm project overall and in Tree Fara 1 specifically are all
located well away from the travel corridor of Skyliners Road within the Deschutes
National Forest, and thus will have no negative visual impact on the forest Ilse
identified in the Forest Plan, In addition, use of the PUD to cluster development'
allows hornesites to be sited at a further distance from the boundary than would
development of ten -acre lots. The open space tract must €ernain 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." I 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
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 state:
"I would note that the Forest Service does have an approved project called West
Bend' that will be active for the coming several years an lands immediately west
of the property. Planned activities include corrrnercial''' and non-commercial
thinning, brush mowing, pile and broadcast 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 Marshal, stated the
USFS has begun implementing the 'gest 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 "West 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 wifl 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 pileislash burns.
On behalf of LandWatch, 'Paul Dewey claims the presence of homes in The Tree Farm 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
Tree Farm 5, 247-14- 250 -CU, 247-14- 251-IP Page 17 of 91
Bcornornnics, included in the record as Exhibit ,;F', 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 5 on 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.' ° Finally, Mr. 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 Shev+lln 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 UGB.
The record indicates that at its closest points, the portions of the DNF engaged in, and planned
for, scenic preservation and recreation are located approximately 3,500 feet from Tree Farm
Lot 50, the most southwestern lot. The staff report suggests, and the Hearings Officer agrees,
that because of the combination of the intervening distance and the low -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 5 residential uses. 1 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 5 on its management practices.
For the foregoing reasons. the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 and its residential uses' will
not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest prect'
on DNF lands in the study area.
Private Forest Land. The private forest lands 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 land — referred to as `Skyline Forest" --
to include a combination of preservation of open space and scenic views, recreation, and
sustainable timber production, not unlike the plan for nearby DNF lands.
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 northwest of The Tree
Farm. In the Hearings Officer's previous decision in Taylor (MP -05-31, CU -05-106. SMA -05-41,
10 nc uded as Exhibit "H' to Mr. Condit's December 11, 2014 letter is
O,NF west and southwest of The Tree Farm, and showing the more d
Forest" — i.e., the area planned for timber production
Tree Farm 5, 247 -14 -00x0250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
color -coded map depicting the
nt location of the DNF "General
Page 18 of 91
MA -6-1,, MA -06-8), involving an application for a large -tract dwelling on a forest -zoned parcel
northwest of The Tree Fan -n, I made the following findings concerning accepted forest practices
on the Cascade Timberlands > property:
°`LandWatch argues that although current forest practices in the study area are of
loci intensity, the Hearings Officer should include within the 'accepted forest
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. LandiWatch's predecessor Sisters Forest Planning Committee
(SFP made the same argument in Hogensen_ in that decision, I made the
Tollovving pertinent findings:
The Hearings Officer concurs with the appellant that it is reasonable to
assume the terra 'accepted' forest practices includes not only those
practices currently taking place, but those that could occur in the future.
Nevertheless, I find it is not reasonable to speculate from this record that
all land in the study area will be reforested and harvested to the nest"
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 than for timber management and harvest. Therefore, I find it
appropriate to evaluate the impacts of the proposed dwelling on those
forest practices that are most prevalent currently and in the recent past —
Le., selective harvesting of trees, log hauling, slash and prescribed
burning, and some chemical spraying.,
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 LURA, 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 -waned
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, I 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 5 shows its moat western lots Lots 48, 49 and 50 -- would be
located at least 4,000 feet from the nearest point on the Cascade Timberlands and and farther
from the nearest smaller private 'forest -zoned parcels to the northwest. The intervening land'''
includes targe open space tracts in Tree Farms 4 and 5 a s well as Shev1 n Park. As with the
nearby DNF lands, the Hearings Officer finds it likely the presence of Shevlin Park has
influenced, and `>will continue to influence, the intensity of forest practices on the nearby private
forest lands. I find impacts,, if any, on Tree Farm 5 from forest practices on the nearby private
forest lands would be significantly attenuated by distance and intervening open space:
Tre
Farm 5, 247 -14-
50 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 --TP
Page 1 9 of 91>
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree, Farm 5 will not force a significant
change in or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on the nearby private
forest lands. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this rule requirement.
H. 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
nonr'evoc ble deed restrictions recorded m 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 5 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 ., development of the open space tract would be prohibited'' for so long as the property is
outside he Bend UGB. As discussed in findings throughout this decision, the applicant has
stated it intends that The Tree Farm and Tree Fara 5 never will be included in the Bend UGB,
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 condition of approval
to record non€revocable deed restrictions for the Tree Farm, 5 open space tract stating that no
portion of the open space tract will be used for a dvvelling or any other use 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 recorded
deed restrictions after recording. I find that with imposition of these conditions of approval the
applicant's intent will be accomplished and the open space tract in Tree Farm 5 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 lc or parcel in a rural
residential'' area. Where a medical hardship creates a need for
a second household to reside temporarily on a lot or parcel
where one dwelling already exists, a Kcal government may
authorize the temporary placement of a manufactured
dwellig or recreational vehicle,
FINDINGS; The applican.
satisfying this criterion.
Tree Farm 5
proposes one single-family dwelling
Division 11, Public Facilities Pllanning
OAR 660-011-006
5, VVa
per residential
ter Service to Ru
a
Lands
1) As used in this rule, unless the context req
247`_14 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
usres o
ot, therefore
the e:
Page 20 of 91
(a)
"Establishment" ent" means the creation of a new water system
and all associated physical components, including systems
provided by public or private entities;
"Extension of a water system" means the extension of a pipe,
conduit, pipeline, remain, or other physical component from or
to an existing water system in order to provide service to a
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 meaningas provided In
Goal 11, and includes all pipe, conduit, pipelirne, mains, or
other physical components of such a system.
(2) Consistent with Goal 11, Decal and use regulations applicable to,
lands that are ..:oglide utter) growth__ bounctarre ....; r d
unincorporated co€rit boundaries shall not:
AtigN an increase ire a base density in a residential zone due
to the availability of service froma water system;
b' Allow a hl her densit for residential development served by
a water system than will be authorized without such service,
or
(c) Alloyv an increase in, the allowable densit of residential
development 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 rule. (Emphasis added. )
FINDINGS; The applicant proposes to provide domestic water to the Tree Farm 4 lits 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 Avian's water systems constitute
'water systems" for purposes of this ruleo
The base density of the UAR 1O Zone will allow the creation of up to ten new residential lots in
Tree Farm 5, as proposed by the applicant. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal'
will not allow an increase in the IJAR-10 base density, allow higher residential density than
�vou€ld be authorized'without $rvt to r service, or allow an increase in allowable dk. n city due to the
presence or extension of a water system.Therefore, 1<find Tree Farm 5 satisfies this criterion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 satisfies, or with i€n
pos€t€on of
the conditions of approval described'above will satisfy, all applicable provisions
administrative miles in Divisions 4 and 11 of OAR Chapter 660.
of the
Tree Farm 5, 247' -14 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP Page 21, of 91
C. Title 16 of t
he Deschutes
RR$O ZONE STANDARDS
1. Chapter 18,80, Ru
FIN
DING
unty Cod
ral Reid
e, the
D
ential Zone
Section 18.60x030, Conditional U
chutes County Zoni
RR -10
ses Permitted,
The foil ing uses may be allowed su
Cluster develo
S: Section 18.04.030 d
pment,
bje
efines "clusterdevelopment„ as
ct to DCC 1
ng Ordinance
12
"* * * a development permitting the clustering of single or multi -family residences
on a part of the property, with individual Iota of not les than two acres in size and
not exceeding three acres in size. No commercial or Industrial uses not allowed by
the applicable zoning ordinance are permitted."
The Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 falls within this definition and therefore is a use
permitted conditionally in the RR -10 Zone. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.128 is
addressed in the findings below.
Tree Farm 5
b. Section 18,00.040, 'Yard and
In an RF -10 Zone, the fail
rraaintahneci,
etba
e
k
lowing
Reg
uirements
yard and setbacks shall be
r The front setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet from a
property line fronting on a local street right-of-way, 30 feet
from a property line fronting on a collector right-of-way and
50 feet from an arterial right-of-way,
There shall be a minifMIMI 'side yard of 10 feet for all uses,
except on the street side of a corner lot the aide yard shall be
20 feet.
C. The minimum rear yard s
hal';
be 20 feet.
D. The setback from the north lot'' line s
setback requirements in DCC 18,116.180.
hall meet the so ar
In addition to the setbacks sot forth herein, any greater
setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes
adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC
15.04 shall be met.
247 -14 -000250 -CU, 241 -14 -000251 -TP
Pag
e22<ofS1
FINDINGS: The tentative plan for Tree Fain 5 shows all residential lots will front on local ,road,
rights-of-way, and therefore the minimum front yard setback for dwellings Is 20 feet. Section€,
18.04.030 defines "corner lot" as:
a lot adjoining two or more streets, other than alleys, at their intersection
provided the angle of the intersection of the adjoining streets does not exceed 135
degrees.
The tentative plan shows Tree Farm 5 Lots 42 and 47 constitute "corner lots" because they are
located at the intersection of Golden Mantle Loop and Canopy Court. Therefore, the minimum
side yards for these two lots are 20 feet, and the minimum side yard for the other eight lots is 10
feet. The minimum rear yard for ail lots is 20 feet. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will
be >>required as a condition of approval to assure dwellings on the Tree Farm 5 lots meet these
minimum setbacks and yards.
c. Section 18.6
In a
r
0.06
0, Dimensional Standards
Zone, th
e fol
lowing dimension al standards shall apply:
J Minimurmr last size shall be 10 acres, except planned and
chaster developments ,shall be allowed an equivalent density'
of one unit per 7.5 acres. Planned and chaster developments
within one mile of an acknowledged urban growth' boundary
shall be allowed ' a five acre minimum of 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 Tree Farm 5 satisfies the maximum um density under
OAR 660-004-0040, which allows lots as small as two acres. The applicant proposes ten 2 -acre
resides ial lots and one 87.4 -acre open space tract for Tree Farm 5. As discussed in the
findings below under the WA Zone, Section 18.88.050 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 Fara 5 states the applicant chose to plat all residential lots in The Tree Farm >—
including all lots in the UAR-10 Zone uu at two acres in size, and to cluster the residential lots, in
order to maximize 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
Ch
a
pter 18.80, Wil
the applic :rat's proposal satisfies all
dlife Area Combining Zone u-- WA
a Section 18.88
.010,
Purpose
The purpose of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is to conserve
important wildlife areas In Deschutes County; to protect an
important environmental, social) and economic element of the
Tree Farm 5. 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247- 0251-T€
Page 23 of 91
area; and to permit development ent compatible with the protec
of the wildlife resource.
Section 18.8
8.02
0, Application of Provisions
The provisions of DCC 18.88 s
the Comprehensive Plan
habitat, antelope
Uninc rp
DCC 18.8
h
II apply to al
nter deer r
range or deer
orated cbn°€€munitiee are exempt
8. (Emphasis added.)
1; areas identified in
n, a significant elk
migration corridor,
from the provisions of
FINDINGS: The tentative plan for The Tree Farm shows the western 333 acres of
development, and all of Tree Farm 5, are within the WA Zone associated with Tu
winter range. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the WA Zone applies to all of Tree
Section 18.8
F NDlNGS: Cluster develo
they are allowed' condition
cluster development stand
8.040, U
es Permitted C'onditionellg
the entire
€halo deer
Farm 5.
Except as provided in DCC 18.88.040(B), in a zone with which
the WA Zone is combined, the conditional uses permitted
shell 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 title.
pments are permitted conditionally in the RR -10 Zone and therefore
ally in the WA Zone and in Tree Farm 5. Compliance with the specific
ards in Chapter 18.128 is addressed in the findings below;
Section 18.88.88
0, D
imensionaI Standards
n a WA Zone, the following dimensional sten
dard
s shall a
p
P1Y:
A. In the Tum.lo, Metolius, North Paulina and Grizzly deer winter
ranges designated in the Comprehensive Plan Resource
Element, the minimurrti lot size for new.. ?arc&ls shall be 40
acres except as provided in DCC 18'88 0 0(D).
TIDINGS; Section 18.04.030 defines "parcel" as "a unit 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 5 would be 107.6
acres in size, exceeding the minimum lot size for new parcels.
RN
DIN
D. Residential land divisions, including partitions, in deer winter
range where the underlying zone is FIR -10 or MUA-10, shall
not be permitted except as a planned development or cluster
development conforming to the following standards:
GS: The applicant proposes a residential and division consis'
of
cluster/RID on property zoned RR -10 and UAR-10, therefore satisfying this criterion,
1„ The minimum a
development shall
Tree Farm 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247-14 000251 -TP
rea
be at
ten -lot
er
a planned or du
t 40 acres.
Page24of9l
FINDINGS: : According to the submitted tentative pia,. Tree Farre 5 would consist of 107.8,'
acres, all of which would be in the WA Zone, therefore satisfying this minimum area standard.
The planned or cluster development shall retain a
minimum of 80 percent open space and conform with
the provisions of DCC 18.128,200 or 210
FINDINGS: According to the submitted tentative plan, Tree Farm 5 would have 20 acres of
residential lots (ten 2 -acre lots), 87.4 acres of open space, and 0.2 acres of right-of-way. Based
on this acreage, approximately 81 percent of Tree Farm 5 would be open space, therefore,
satisfying this criterion.
Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC
210, or DCC 18.60.060(C), the tote
residences in a cluster development may
18A'28
.200 or
number of
not exceed
the density permitted, in the underlying, zone,
FINDINGS: The, general density in the R.R.-10 Zone is one dwelling per ten acres. The applicant'
proposes that the 107.6 -acre Tree Farm 5 be developed with ten residential lits and one open
space tract. The Hearings Officer has found the open space, tract is of included in the
residential density calculation, and therefore Tree Farm 5 satisfies' this standard.
d, Section 18,88.060, Siting Standards
A. Setbacks shall be those described in th
with which the WA Zone is combined,
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer ha
be required as a condition of approval to assure all dwellings in Tree Farm
Zone setbacks
un
de
ly
g z
s
s found the applicant will
Tree Fara 5
5 satisfy the RR -10
Ba 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 5, 1992 unless it can be found that:
1, Habitat values (Le.,,;browse, forage, cover, access to
water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or
greater protection through a different developrent
pattern; or,
The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements
for vehicular 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,
247 -14.000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 25 of 91
The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the
edge of a driveway that existed as of August 5, 1992.
For purposes of DCC 18,88 060(B):
1, A private road, easement for vehicula
driveway will conclusively be regarde
existed prior to August 6, 1932 if the appl
any of the following;
r access or
having,
ubmits
d as
icant
A copy of an easement recorded
County', Clerk prior to August
establishing a right of ingress and e
vehicular use;
with the
5, 1''932
g
res
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
showing r; the road (but not showing a mere trail
or footpath).
An applicant may submit any other evidence thought
to establish the existence of a private road, easement
for vehicular access or driveway as of August 5, 1992
which evidence need not be regarded as conclusive.
FINDINGS: Section 18.04,000 defines `'road" "a public, or private way created to provide
Ingress or egress to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land." The applicant's ' burden of
proof for Tree Farm 5 states all building envelopes except those on Lots 41 and 42 are located
entirely within 300 feet of roads that were in place prior to August 5, 1992. In support of that
statement the applicant submitted as part of its '''WMMMP``''in€ Exhibit'" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of
proof two aerial photos of The Tree Farm property dated July 28, 1990. These photos show a
network of dirt roads on the property referred to in the burden of proof as former logging roads.
n addition, the WIMP includes a diagram prepared by the applicant's engineer WH Pacific that
superimposes the dirt roads on the Tree 'Fara 5 lots. The Hearings Officer has examined these
photos and diagram and l find they provide conclusive evidence that the building envelopes on
Lots 40 and 43-50 in Tree Farm 5 are located entirely within 300 feet of one or more dirt roads
that appear in the 1990 photographs, and therefore dwellings on those lots can be constructed
n compliance with this paragraph. For these reasons, l find Tree Farm 4 satisfies the criteria in
this section.
With respect to the building;' envelopes "on Tree f=arm Lots 41 and 42, the VV P states in"
relevant part:
,=Although the structures on these two Iets could potentially be located farther
than 300 feet from an existing road, the proposed locations were selected by the
project team wile considering input from the, biologist to maintain a clustering of,
Tree Fara 5, 247.14 -000250€ -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
rage 26 of
home sites and prevent additional > disturbance to wildlife habitat that would occur
if they were placed in a different area on the property within the WA Zone. Their
location maintains not only the north -south corridor among the home sites, but it
also preserves the larger contiguous area of mule deer winter range to the west
and south of the development within the property boundary, much of which is
also located within 300 feet of an existing road. This proposed lot arrangement
roteots the wildlife habitat values and, migration corridors to a higher degree
than alternative plans that` would more diffusely develop the property within the
WA Zone, and therefore, it maintains compliance with DCC 18.88.060."
Based on the WMP, the Hearings Officer>.finds placement of Lots 41 and 42 farther than 300
feet from one of the former logging roads satisfies this criterion because "'habitat values (i.e,,
browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater
protection through" this alternate development pattern.
For the foregoing reason, the He
section,
ring
s Officer finds Tree Fa
e. Section 18 88.070, Fence
Stan
da
d
rm 5
e
a
es the crite
ria in this
The following fencing, provisions shall apply as a condition of
approval for any new fences constructed as a part of develop€et
of a property in conjunction Frith a conditional use permit or site
plan review.
A New fences in the Wild
designed to permit wiled
and guidelines shat
Tree Farm 5, 247 14-000'50
which provides eq
the County a
Fish and Wild
Exe
life Area Combining Zone shall be
Ile passage. The follow ng standards
apply unless an alternative fence design
uivalent 'wildlife passage is approved by
nsltation with the Oregon Department of
tier cis
life:
The d
strand
stance between the ground and the bottom
or, board of the fence shall be at least 15 inches.
The height of the fence shat
above ground levels
yet exceed
48
nches
Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passe
wildlife a e preferred. Woven wife fences
d
iscouraged.
ptionse
e of
are,
Fences encompassing leas than 10,000 square, feet
which surround d or. ; :are adjacent to residences or
structures are exempt from the above fencing,,
standards.
Co
r
Is
sedl
U. 247 -14 -000251 -TP
orki
g live
tock.
Page 27 of 91
FINDINGS: The applicant does not propose any new fencing for Tree Farm 5, 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 theWA-zoned portion of Tree Farrn 5 in accordance with these standards. As noted
above, the applicant proposes to remove most of the existing wire fencing on The Tree Farm.,
For the fore
stand
and
going reasons, the Hearings Officer find
s in the WA Zone,
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA
3
Ch
apte
r
18 12
8, Cond
itioal
Section 18.1 aO10, 0
Use
perations
s Tree Fe
rr
5
atisfies
11 a
pplic ble
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 Uniform
Development Procedures Ordinance; and the Comprehensive
Pan.
Section 18.12
8.015 General Standards Governing Conditional Uses
Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family,
dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following
tandards in addition to the standards of the zone hi which the
conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the
chapter:
FINDINGS: The applicant argues the general conditional s se standards in this section do not
apply to Tree Farm 5 because the proposal ,includes individual ''' single -fancily dwellings. The
Hearings Officer disagrees. I find these criteria are applicable to Tree Farm 5 because the
proposed conditional use is a cluster development, not an "individual single-family dwelling." 1
FINDINGS: The H
of Tree Farre 5,
A. The site under consideration shall
s
uitable for the proposed use based
be determined to be
on the following factors.
eanngs Officer finds the site for evaluation of the propos
5
te, design and ope
ed
rating character's
steriPUD isa
ics of the use;
11
Site. Tree Farm 5 would be 107.6 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 followys the contours of the property., an. in particular the central
ridge that runs generally in a southw rest -to -northeast direction. Tree Farm 5 is the most western
of the legal lots that make up The Tree Farm. R extends from the middle of The Tree Farm in a
11 The applicant did not address these criteria in its burden
the staff report submitted a rnernorandu€m dated October 2
Tree F rrn 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247-14-00
025 TP
proof
14, ad
for Tree Farre
dressing the crite
t in response t
Pag
28of91
generally southwest direction to the western boundary of The Tree Farm. The topography of
Tree Farm 5 is mostly sloping with a relatively level ridgetop area near the southeast orn€er:
Vegetation consists of a moderate cover of ponderosa pine and juniper trees and brush. Tree
Farm € b does not have frontage on Skyliners Road; it is separated from€, the road by the most,
southwestern portions of Tree Farms 2 and 3Tree Farm 5 is separated from the Bend GB by
Tree Farms 1, 2, 3 and 4, and a vacant parcel owned by Miller Tree Farm.
Design and Operating Characteristics. The proposed ten € esidential lots in Tree Farm 5
would be clustered nea the middle of The Tree Farm on higher ground. All lots would have
frontage on Canopy Court or Golden Mantle Loop which connects to Ridgelin€e Drive in Tree
Farm 3 and thereafter with Skyliners Road at the southern property boundary. The applicant
proposes to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to provide access from Skyliners Road
to the lots in those three cluster/PUDs. Construction of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farms 1, 2 and
3 would allow the connection to Golden Mantle Loop in Tree Farm 5. 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 gra€es.
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
Farm property is developed with paved streets to which Sage Steppe Drive could connect. Sage,
Steppe Drive would be a dedicated public 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. With development of Tree Farms 1, >2 and 3, lots in Tree Farm 5
would have a connection to the secondary access road. 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 rmore groundwater wells.
The majority of Tree Farm 5 (87.4 acres) would be set aside as perrnanent 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 Farm and a license granted by The Tree Farm
homeowners' association (HOA) for use of trails within the residential lot areas. The multi -use
paths and recreation/mountain bike trails in Tree Farm € 4 would connect with trails in the rest of
The Tree Farm and Shevlin Park and the DNF to the west and southwest.
The Heanngs Officer finds the site for Tree Farm 5 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. ''1 find the property is large enough to accommodate the proposed
resident al lots,, open space tract. and private roads. 1 find the clustering of dwellings in the
middle of The Tree Fern will preserve the maximum amount of open space and will allow the
dwellings to be sited primarily on the only levet ground on Tree Farm 5. l find the design of the
private roads in Tree Farm 5 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 the findings
immediately below, l have found soils on the site are suitable for installation of on-site septic
systems. t 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 5 is suitable for the
proposed ten -lot cluster/PUD considering the site and the design and operating characteristics
of the proposed development,
Tree Farm 5, 247-14-0002 -CU, 247 14-00025 -TP
Paget cif91
2. Ad
eco
u
acy, of tra
nsporta
tion access to the site; and
FINDINGS: Access to Tree Farm 5 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 Farm
roads at an intersection in Tree Farm 3.''The segment of Tree Fara Drive from Skyliners Road
north to a point near this intersection would be unproved with a 26 -foot -wide paved surface to
accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle traffic. The remaining segrnent 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, in Tree Farm '1 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 Miller Tree Farm property is developed
wltl paved streets to which Sage Steppe Drive could connect.
Traffic Study. In support of The Tree Farm proposal, the applicant submitted a traffic impact
analysis ("traffic study" prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated July,, 2014, and included in
the record as Exhibit "H" to the burden of proof statement for Tree Farm 5. The traffic study
indicates the Institute of T .nsporrtation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (1TE'
Manual) predicts eac 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 Farm 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 clear vision
areas at this intersection.
The traffic study also analyzed '''Tree '''Farm traffic im
intersections on the west side of Bend:
p
c
on
he following
five existing
O Skyliners Road and CrosbyDrive;
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 Farm, 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 Tossing), 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 Farm. 1'n his August 29,
2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Senior Transportation Panner 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 sidle of Bend, and would cause
Tree Farm
, 247-14-00 2 -CU, 247-14-000251 -TP
Pa
30of91
serious deterioration to 'yliners Road. The Hearings Officer finds no merit to these argu
in light of the traffic study's conclusions and the lack of road improvement recommend
from the road department.
ments
ations
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, The Hearings Officer is aware the city's
approval of a ten -acre OSU Cascades campus is on appeal to LURA and the approval therefore
is not final. For this reason, I'''find the OSU development and its potential 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,n-i. peak hour trips. The Rio Lobo property is outside the Bend UGB,
has no county land use approvals for the type of low-density residential'' development' permitted
in the UAR410 Zone s, i.e., up to 37 dwellings LL4 and has limited road access. E2 Therefore, l 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 Farm
property to Crosby Drive, a public street in the Bend UGB. Sage Steppe Drive would be a p€€blic
road within a dedicated 60. -foot right-of-way 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. The temporary access
road would provide a means of ingress and egress for Tree Farm 5 lots following construction of
the private roads in Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3. In his November 20, 2014 comments on the
applicant's proposal, County Engineer George Kolb stated the emergency access road roust
have a 24 -foot -wide surface, and on that date'' the applicant submitted a revised tentative plan
for Tree Fara 1 showing the ernergency 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"
�2 In his Decernber 19, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, Peter Rt€ssell 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 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Fez
e
1 of 91
locks, but that additional options are available>.for "residential access," including special keys,
key codes, and auto€Taatic 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 Drive 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
emergency road for egress. in his January 6, 2015 submission, Mr. Dewey stated the
applicant's 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's' assessment. 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 all three schools and The Tree Farm were
evacuated simultaneously. Moreover, I find that in light of Mr. Marshall's extensive experience;
including dealing with wildfires on the , est 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 Pau Dewey's November
10, 2014 submission, LandWatch's fire expert Addison Johnson suggested the secondary
emergency access road should be constructed to run in the opposite direction faom 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,
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 of the cul-de-sac bulb for
Ridgeline Drive. !n the Hearings Officer's decision in Tree Farm 1, 1 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 include 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 described above. the
Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 is suitable for the proposed ten -lot cluster/PUD considering
the adequacy of transportation access to the site.
3.
The natural and physical features of the site, including,
but not limited to, general f:opogr� hy, not wal hazards
'ards
and natural resource values,
Tree Fara a 5, 24714 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 32 of 91
FI
N
Di
NGS:
General Topography., The Tree Farm tentative plan shows. and the Hearings Officer's site
visitobservations confirmed, that the Tree Farm 5 site has varying topography. The dominant
feature of Tree Farm 4 is the central ridge running from southwest to northeast. The applicant's
burden of proof states ,> and my site visit observations confirmed, that the higher ground atop this
ridge is relatively level to robing, with steeper slopes in the northwest where the terrain drops
toward Tu€malo Creek. The tentative plan for Tree Farm 5 shows the proposed residential lots
would be >located atop this ridge. Topographical information for The Tree Farm indicates the
central ridge is at its narrowest in Tree Farm 5, resulting in the most western lots — Lots 43-50 —
being at least partially on slopes. The tentative plan indicates the slopes from the central ridge
down to the west range from 10 to 20 percent grades. As discussed above, the private roads in
Tree Farm b would align with the natural topography rather than cutting across slopes.
As discussed in the findings below concerning
the steeper slopes in Tree Farm 5 and it
nt's wildfire plan does not adequately ad
ap,lica
the, applicant has not demonstrated
development considering its topogra
natural hazard
a
5, the Hearings Officer has found
may increase the risk of wildfire, and the
dress this additional risk, For this reason, find
the site for Tree Farm 5is suitable for the proposed duster
phy.
Natural Hazards. The identified natural hazard affecting The Tree Farm is wildfire. There is no
dispute The Tree Farm is in a wildfire hazard area.13 if is located in the "Wildland Urban
Interface (Will) i.e,, the transition area between human, development and'''wildland, in this
case forest lands. The eastern half of The Tree Farrn 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 ,lune. 2014 Two Bulls Fire burned severa 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 V `UI, 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 Hall Fire removed much of the forest
overstory in the eastern part of The Tree Fara, 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. ''l observed
evidence of this thinning activity during my site visit. However, as I noted in my site visit report,
observed that the forested part of The Tree Farm, including all of Tree Farm 6, rota ns a
relatively dense tree cover, visible in aerial photographs in the record.14 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 UAR 10 Zones. The denser forest also covers
a small portion of UAR-10 zoned property in Tree Farms 2 and 3 and the most southwestern
,3 The parties disagree as to the degree of that hazard. Paul Dewey describes it as 'extreme."The
applicant notes the Greater Bend CWPP (Cornmunity Wildfire Protection Plan) 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 :_ while other areas on the map are
categorized as higher risk — i.e.; 'extreme" and 'high density extreme."
t4 E g., the Tree Farm Master Pian, Exhibit 'A" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof.
Tree~" Far€m 5, 247-14-000250- U, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 33 of 91
portion of Tree 'Farm 1 The shrub steppe vegetation in Tree Farms 1, 2 and continues north
onto the Rio Lobo property and east onto the Miller Tree Fara property.
LandWatch argues that no part of The Tree Farm property or Tree Farm 5 is suitable for the
proposed cluster/PUDs 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 LndWatch°s fire expert Addison Johnson, as well as dozens of pages of
articles, studies, and research papers discussing the risks of wildfire in the WUI,
In response, Mr. Condit argues in his December 30, 2014 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 eliminate all risk
from wildfires, it does not, however, follow that all development should be
prohibited. Deschutes County regulates developments in areas subject to natural
hazards (including wildfires) pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goal
which provides that 'fflocal 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 indeed, such risk would be impossible to eliminate in the Bend area. The greater Bend
area Community 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 territory 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 fire hazard risk within the City and on roost of the
surrounding territories is thus the same or even higher than on The Tree Farre
properties.'
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.
lir Dewey argues that, because the Applicant cannot guarantee absolute
protection from wildfires, no development should be allowed. Such a reading
would srallorf the Code.'',
The Hearings Officer agrees the county made a policy decision that the RR-10/WA zoned lands
west of the Bend UGB are developable; Any change to the uses permitted in the RR -10 and
UA -10 Zones west of Bend — e.g., dlim€inating dwellings due to fire risk -- would require
legislative action by the county, such as a text amendment to Titles 18 and 19, and cannot be,
accomplished through individual quasi-judicial land use decisions.
Tree Farm 5, 24 -. 4-0
00250 U 00251 -TP
1-T
Page 34 of 91
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/PUD 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 criteria, 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 finds 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 5 site. Rather, it is whether the site for Tree Farm 5 is suitable for the
proposed custerIPUD considering the wildfire hazard.
The unusual configuration of Tree Farm 5 restricts placement of dwellings to the higher ground
near the middle of The Tree Farm where most of the lots world be loped. The applicant
proposes to cluster the dwellings on the high ground, and to address wildfire risk through its
wildfire plan, included in the record as Exhibit '`J" to the Tree Farm 5 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 ellrDi r ales off fire risk for these dwellings.
Rather, 1 must determine whether the wildfire plan, in its design and implementation, will reduce
that risk to a sufficient degree that the Tree Farm 5 site and configuration are suitable for the
proposed 10 -lot cluster/PUD considering the risk of wildfire.
The applicant's wildfire plan' consists of a two-page narrative to which are attached nine pages
of information concerning the "Firewise Communities Program" (Firewise) and the "Fire Adapted
Communities Program," The, narrative describes the wildfire plan's goals as:
further reduction of !add
e
fuel,<
thinning of juniper and srrrall ponderosa trees
s
evelopment of a fire adaptive ecosystem to preserve old growth
• maintenance of a healthy tree stand and reduction of the threa
damaged trees; and
O enhancement of the;. l andscapewith native %,g
s
upport wildlife.
rasses for a natu
The wildfire plan identifies the following means to accomplish th
ese g
pals:
of beet
ral I
a
eki61a
ndsca
pe
nd fire
nd to
1. wildland fuel treatments co€Tspleted 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 wijj„p.rply pit 1 e
community safety from fire;
€cable.
Tree Farm 5, 247.14 -000250 -Cu, 24 -14-000251-TP
criteria in th€
s l utas g s €tit code relative to
Page 35 of 91
3. The Tree Farrn will become a nationally recognized Firewise/LISA Commuray 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 to use lire rosiatanttulidir g materials,- 1.1Ar 4gill?i,-1 trq tr epts 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 Farm deve oper and HOA will make an annual commitment;, to maintain recognition
as a FireiselUA Community,
6. residents and visitors will be familiar with the county's Witdfitre Fire Evao ion Plan
addition to The Tree Farm Evacuation Plan; and
7. The Tree Farm's governing documents will address sources of human caused i+ritions and
prohibit burning of debris and the use of fireworks. (Emphasis added.)
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 (OFC) and the Oregon State Residential Code to '`greatly reduce the risk of
home ignition from wildfire." Attached to this testimony are several NFPA and Firewise
documents, including the 34 -page NFPA "Standards for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards
from Wildland Fire." However, Mr. 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
plans proposed implementation measures are general and aspirational.
LandWatch questions the effectiveness of the applicant's wildfire Man for two principle reasons,
each of which is addressed in the findings below;
1. Reliance on Firewise and NFPA Standards. In his November 21, 2104 comments on the
applicant's proposal, Ed Keith noted that to obtain Firewise recognition, The Tree Fai 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 that
"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
whorr they would be enforced and their effectiveness evaluated,
Although Mr. Marshall's written testimony, provided in
specific recommendations for implementation of the Firewise
several
Tree
rm 5, 247
250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
does includesome
program and NFPA standards,
Page 36 of 91
these recommendations are not described in the applicant's submitted wildfire plan. Rather, the
pIan r; 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;,
co npliance with this conditional use approval criterion. I also find it is not my 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 plan therefrom. Neither do the
wildfire plan's mere references to Firewise and the NFPA provide a sufficient basis for me to
impose clear and objective conditions of approval, I cannot simply condition approval on
compliance with the Firewise Community recognition process and the NFPA standards. See,
Sisters Forest Planning Comm v, Deschutes County, 48 LUBA 78 (2004), 198 Or App 311, 108
P3d 1175 (2005).15 Finally, the wildfire plan's narrative su€ rr aries state the developer and the
HOA will undertake certain wildfire plan activities, but they do not clarify ifrwhen the developer
would bow out and the HOA would take over.
For;, the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's wildfire plan is not sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with this 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
92there 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, I 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. I find
such a plan must include, at a minimum, the following information.
identification of each residential lot building envelope, the extent and nature of the
defensible space around each dwelling, and fire fuel treatments on the building envelope
and the rest of the lot;
the setback from the upper edg
the fuel treatment,
will occur on open s
drainage, and on wil
whether and
e df the slope(s) for each building envelope and dwelling;
any, on any slope below each dwelling, and if such fuel treatment
pace, what impact it will have on that open space, on surface water
dlife habitat for lots in the WA Zone;
here decks and outlbuiid
in
ould be permitted
on each lot;
what specific construction methods and building materials will be required for each
dwelling to meet specific, identified NFPA standards:
a detailed description of how and by whom the wildfire plan will be implemented,
monitored, and enforced, with particular attention to the transition between the developer
and the HOA;
C
d
specificmapped evacuation plan 'for The Tree Farrnn and each of the five Tree Farr
ev{elopments including directions for operation of the gate on Sage Steppe Drive; and
15 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.
Tre
Farm 5, 247 -14.000250 -CU, 24x7 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 37 of
a dotal
wildfire plan
ed description of when and how residents and guests will be infor€pied of the
requirements and the evacuation
plan.
2. inadequate Recognition of Fire Behavior. The parties disagree as to whether the proposed
design and configuration of 1 ree Farm 5 adequately recognize and address wildfire behavior..
For example, Mr. Johnson argues placement of dwellings on th central ride and upland 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. Mr. Johnson also argues 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 claims the previously burned
portion of The Tree Farm does not create a fuel break between the forested western half of The
Tree Farm and the urban and urbanizable lands to the east, as claimed by the applicant,
because the Awbrey Nall 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,,
Mr. 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 iildfire 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 wet side of the
central ridge to be particularly steep, and that many kcal subdivisions have been developed on
steeper ground. He stated he believes fire risk can be reduced by setting dwellings and decks
well, back rom the top of the slopes, The applicant also submitted several letters from Mr.
Marshall, discussed in the findings bove, 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 pian.
Tree Fara 5 is the most western of the cluster developments and has the steepest slopes and
the most dense vegetation in The Tree Farm. Dwellings in Tree Farm 5 would be located farther
west than dwellings in the nearby Highlands at Broken Top PUD. They also would be farther
west than dwellings in the Saddleback Subdivision, just north of Shevlin Park, which was
evacuated during the 2014 Two Bulls Fire. All of the proposed Tree Farm 5 dwellings are
located at the top of a slope. For these reasons, and in the absence of an adequate wildfire
plan, the ''Hearings Officer finds applicant has not demonstrated the site and configuration of
Tree Farm 5 sufficiently address predicted wildfire behavior affecting residential lots and
dwellings. 1 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
demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 5 is suitable for the proposed use considering
hazards,
failed to
natural,
Natural Resource Values. The Hearings Officer finds natural resources on the site of Tree
lv vin 5 consist of native vegetation including predominantly shrub -steppe vegetation, scattered
rock outcrops, and wildlife habitat including the 'Turnalo winter deer range in, the most
southwestern portion of the site within the RR -10 and WA Zones.
Tree Farn-a;; , 247-14-00
0250 -CU, 247-14-0
251 -TP
Page 3 of 91
a. Vegetation. The majority of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 5 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 5 open space tract, In addition, the
applicant proposes that each lot in Tree, Farm 5 will have a designated building envelope in
which the dwelling must be constructed, preserving native vegetation on the residential' lets
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 5 for fire fuel reduction can
and will be accomplished in a manner consistent with preservation of wildlife habitat. However,
because of the sloped lots and moderate vegetative cover in Tree Farm 5, and the suggestion in
Mr. i +iarshall`s testimony that Firewise and NFPA standards might require thinning and/orr
removal of vegetation on slopes below the dwellings - potentially within the open space tract .:.,
the Hearings Officer finds fire fuel reduction in Tree Farm 5 may be more extensive than in the
other Tree Pawl cluster PUDs.,
b. Rimrock and Rock Outcrops. At the outset, the Hearings Officer finds it is not clear any
rock outcrops in Tree Farm 5 qualify as "rimrack," defined in Section 18.04.0 30 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 5 indicate the applicant does not
intend to remove or alter existing rimrock or rock outcrops.
c. Wildlife Habitat, The Hearings Officer finds that because Tree Farm b is located entirely
within the WA Zone, its wildlife habitat consists of winter deer range including migration
corridors, The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 states all of the open space tract
would be preserved, no new fences would be established, much of the existing wire fencing
wou€Id be removed, and the applicant would eradicate and replant most of the existing network
of dirt logging roads. However, all ten Tree Farm 5 dwellings, portions of Golden Mantle Loop
and Canopy Court, and portions of the multi -use path and recreation 'trail systems would be
established in the winter range habitat. The applicant states the only vegetation removed would
be that necessary for dwelling and road construction and for fire fuel reduction.
As noted in the findings above under the WA Zone, the stated purpose of that zone in Section
18.88.010 is to "conserve important wildlife areas" while permitting "development compatible
with the protection of the wildlife resource." Therefore, the protective measures established in
the WA Zone are intended to accomplish those dual', purposes. As discussed in the WA Zone
findings above, the Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 5 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
upland habitats into built structures, including roads,
habitat;
Il convert native forest and
homeowners will be allowed to remove habitat on their ho
deer migration torrid
Tree Farre 5
ars will be blocked by dwellings;
Iting in
neeitesi
permanent loss of
247 -14.000250 -CU, 24.7.14 -0000251 -TP` Page 39' of 91
trails and open space will promote low impact recreationaluse - 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 has not identified mitigation measures demons ating "no net loss" of
habitat pursuant to ODFW's administrative rules.1'6,
The Hearings Officer finds ODFW's habitat mitigation policy, which includes the "no net loss
standard., does not establish approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use decisions unless they
involve local government land use regulations that require habitat mitigation, or proposed plan'
amendments or zone changes relating to habitat protection. OAR 635-415-0015 and OAR 635-
415-0020.
35-41 !0020. l find neither exception applies here. i also find ODFW's concerns about low -impact
recreational use on trails are of greater relevance to Tree Farms 4 and >5 than they are to Tree
Farms 1. 2 and 3 because all of Tree Farm 5 and most of Tree Farm 4 are located in the winter
deer range, Consequently, l find the relevant wildlife issues include development of dwellings,
roads, and trails, and the vegetation removal required for those features and for fire fuel
reduction.
Land titch 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 winter range and migration corridors, The article reviews the work of Jeff Kline, a
research forester with'''PNVVRS, 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 recommendations that resource
managers work with landowners to consider protective measures such as conservation
easements to protect winter deer range and migration corridors,
The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal addresses the specific winter range qualities
on The Tree Farm property including specific migration corridors, and identifies protective
measures similar to conservation easements for both the winter range and migration corridors.
The '!i:VMP, dated May 19, 2014, and attached to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof as Exhibit
was prepared by Dr, Wendy 'dente, an ecologist and biologist with Mason, Bruce and Girard
Natural Resource Consultants (MB&G). The VVIVIP'' includes an overview of The Tree Farm
property Dr. Wente's methods for investigation and identification, of existing wildlife habitat and `>
use, her assessment of the wildlife uses 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,
At page 8 of the'" MP, Dr, Wente identified 'genera
The Tree Farm in relevant part as follows:
"Mule Deer Habitat an
d Migration Corridor.
wildlife utilization trends" for mule deer on
Deschutes County has designated the Tree Farm West property [the part of The
Tree Farm located in the WA Zone] within the PSA {The Tree Farm] (Figure 1) as
a mule deer i tinter range (WAZone), and dear are also known to migrate
rough the area_ Throughout, the field investigation, the MB&G biologist
Iii ODFW also raised concerns about a proposed pond in The Tree Farm. However, in her letter dated
October 10, 2014, Dr. Wente stated the pond has been removed from The Tree Fare proposal.
Tree Farre 5, 247-14-
01'50 247 -14 -000251 --TP
Page 4L of 91
observedsigns 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 tip-gradiant and
down-gradiant trails/Tracks suggest that forested areas within and throughout the
PSA serve as diffuse corridors for traveling to resources located 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 boundaty where it parallels Turnalo Creek.
Deer are, also likely using corridors where they would experience lower gradients,
such as along the existing road to the south of plot H7, to move between the
Tumalo Creek riparian corridor and upland areas to the east (outside of the WA
Zone) that provide bunchgrass and antelope bitterbrush forage. Therefore, the
B&G biologist was able to corroborate the WA Zone designation within the PSA
elative to mule deer habitat and use."
Based on the figures and photographs in the WMP, the Hearings Officer,undertands Dr, Wente
to conclude mule deer habitat use and travel corridors are sufficiently diffuse on The Tree Farm
property that deer currently move across The Tree Farm,
Dr, ''Wente
relevant pa
als
o submitted
s follows:
a letter d
ated October 10, 2014 responding to OD
FW's coricerras in
"ODFW coraarrrented that the deer migration corridors `could be rpleteiy
eradicated or' substantially cut-off [sic], forcing deer to move through the
development * * ".' The Tree Farm RR -10 parcel, which is overlain by the deer
winter 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 8,88.050(D)(2) requires the retention of
80% of an RR -10 zoned area with a WA zone as open space, thus this
development far exceeds the proportion of open space required by the code for a
cluster development within a WA Zonein addition to providing more open space
than required by the code for deer winter range on RR -10, the development team
selected a design configuration that would maintain wildlife corridors tl roughout
the open space. The plan provides an extensive corridor alt iag the western
boundary. preserving, an area where deer would be expected to continue utilizing
the Turnalo 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 natural lay of the land
Finally, the configuration of the development plan supports east/west deer
vement patterns along the southern portion of the RR4O zone. This area
isclearly maintained as a corridor of habitat between the mead [ kytl iers
Road] and the southernmost cluster [in Tree Farms 3 and 51 These
corridors, and the open space in general, will continue to provide spacfor
deer to move across and to utilize the wildlife habitat provided by the WA
zone on the RR4O.' (Bold emphasis added.)
Tree Farm 5, 247 -14 -000250 -Cts, 247-14-t1O0251-TP Page 41 of 91
The Hearings Officer understands the above -emphasized language to mean lir. V'Jente
concluded > the proposed roads and trails, open space tract, and dwellings in Tree Farm 5 would'
not create a barrier to deer movement or habitat use in that area. Each of these development
features is discussed in the findings below.
1 Roads and Trails. As discussed in the findings above, there are a number of existing dirt
roads on The Tree Farm site. The record indicates these roads and dirt trails in The Tree Farm
have been. and continue to be, used by members of the public. The applicant's WMP states
with respect to roads and trails in Tree Farm 5:
"Where proposed accsss roads intersect' tt e punned [north -scout ] condor, there
will be reduced speed signs and signage indicating wildlife cros, ings. "
Considering historic human use of these roads and trails, the relatively low volume of traffic
predicted for The Tree, Farm Drive in general at buildout --- 476 ADTs — and the very low traffic
volume on the segment of Golden iantle Drive and Canopy Court providing access to
residentiallots in Tree Farm 5, the Hearings Officer finds that with;;, these measures, the
presence, of roads and trails within Tree Fa rn 5 will not interfere with use of winter deer range in
general or in particular with migration corridors the PUD roads and trails will cross,
(2) Open Space, Tract. At the public hearing, the Hearings Officer questioned whether ongoing
fire fuel management in The Tree Farm and the open space tracts can be undertaken consistent
wsivith the conservation of the'Tumalo winter deer range. In response, the applicant submitted a
letter dated December 5, 2014 from Dr. Wente stating the ' MP and the applicants 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."'' Dr.
'dente noted that the fuel reduction treatments proposed for The Tree Farm's open space tracts
are a continuation of the treatments already practiced 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)
reg rlar brush cutting and removal of juniper trees encourages the orowth of forbs that make up
much of the winter forage for deer.
Dr. `ente's opinion would support a finding that the applicant's proposed fire fuels management
will be consistent with conservation of the Tumalo winter deer range in Tree Fared 5. However,
as :discussed in the fundings above, the Hearings Officer has found the record, including the
applicant's wildfire plan evidence, suggests that in order to adequately address predicted''
wildfire behavior it may be necessary to remove significant vegetation downslope from
dwellings, including from the adjacent open space tract(s) It is not clear; that Dr. Wente
considered remove) of vegetation beyond historic fire fuel treatments in forming her opinion
about impacts on the winter deer range. Moreover, as discussed above, I have found the
applicant's wildfire plan is inadequate because, among other deficiencies, it does not specify
what fuel treatments wl be required to reduce the fire risk for dwellings on each Tree Farm lot.
(3) Dwellings. The Hearings Officer finds the configuration of Tree Farm 5, with its clustering of
dwellings as required in the WA Zone, preserves large swaths of open space as well as leaving
the existing migration corridors intact. The WMP states in relevant part:
Tree Erre5
247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP'
Page 4.of91
"The currently proposed lot configuration also allows for a north/south >.deer and
other wildlife movement corridor within the residential development,providing
connectivity along the eastern edge of Tree Parra West, the portion of the
property within the WA Zone. This wildlife corridor is located between lots 43 [in'
Tree Farm 5] and 37'''[in Tree Farm 41 on its northern terminus as depicted in the
conceptual site plan (Appendix A). * * The corridor is designed to provide at
least a 100 -meter -wide passage between structures and should be sufficient for
mule deer given the minor topographic relief and habitat type (Sperger 2006).
The corridor is also sited to take advantage of natural break in the topography at
its northern outlet. Deer likely already use this break in the northwestern ridge to
access the flatter portions of the property to the east, and the development
corridor will allow them to continue this movent pattern. '
The proposed Tree Farm 5 configuration with ten dwellings also will significantly intensify
human activity over more recent human use in this habitat consisting of low -intensity recreation,
tree and brush thinning, and historical logging,, In contrast to these mostly seasonal activities,
dwellings would create year-round human activity. Opponents question whether developing
Tree Farm 5 at the proposed density will create too great an rmpact on the winter range
cornpared with lower density development, or no development at al The applicant's WMP does
not address this issue, which l find may well be relevant in the context of this very general
"suitability" approval criterion.
Finally, the WMP includes at pages 9412 a number of habitat € itig .tion and conservation
measures. These address factors including dwelling siting and fencing consistent with the WA
Zone requirements discussed above, 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 the 'iMP suffers from the same lack of detail and clarity as does the
wildfire plan as to how, when, where, and by whom these measures will be undertaken, ''how'
their success will be measured, and how and by whom they will be enforced, Rather, the WIMP
st imply that certain things „will be done" or swill comply." For example, the WMP states:
ate
s
'During development, the developer will be responsible for managing the open
space that encompasses the wildlife management area. Upon completion.
management of the open space' rill ultimately be transferred to either a home
owner's association or a non profit or other public entity,"
The WMP does not explain the meaning of the terms "development" and 'completion" in this
context. They could signify that once all Tree Farm infrastructure has been completed by The
Tree Farm LLC, management of The Tree Farm open space and habitat shifts to the HOA,
which at that point might only exist on paper.
As is the case with ti e applicant's wildfire plan, the Hearings Officer finds that to be effective,
the WMP must include more detail, such as an action plan that identifies specific measures
addressing each residential'' lot in the WA Zone, as well as roles, responsibilities, and timing of
measures to implement the ctionplan. And as with the wiiltire plan, l""find it is neither fe:r siblr
nor appropriate for me to craft conditions of approval in an effort to make the applicant's
proposal approvable.
Tree Fara 5, 247 -14 -000250 --CU, 247-1 4-0002 5 1-1- Page 43 of 91
For the foregoing reg
demonstrate the site
resource values.
Fl
N
D
1NG :
sons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has failed to
r Tree Farm 5 is suitable for the proposed use considering natural
The proposed use shall be compati
projected uses on surrounding pro
factors listed in DCC 1 ,128. 15(A).
Existing and Projected Uses. Existing
discussed in the findings below.
ble with existing and
p
erties based on the
and projected uses ran surrounding properties are
1, East To the east of Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 is vacant land zoned UAR-1O and owned by Miller
Tree Farm. The Hearings Officer finds that in the short term this property could be developed
with ten -acre residential ots or with smaller lots through PUD approval. In the longer term,
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 development
including urban -density residential, commercial, and light industrial development. The Hearings
Officer finds these uses will continue in the future. The applicant's burden of proof states, and l
agree, that the design of The Tree Farm, 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 lands to the east and Shevlin Park and forest lands the west.
2. West< 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. To the southwest is the portion of the DNF planned and managed for
scenic dews and recreation, including the "Phil's Trail" mountain biking trail network. The
Hearings Officer finds it is reasonable to assume these uses will continue in the future. Farther
to the west and northwest are private forest lands including the approximately 33,000 -acre
Cascade Timberlands property and several smaller parcels. Evidence in the record concerning,
current uses on these lands is scant, so 1 have found it appropriate, for purposes of the suitability'
analysis to assume existing uses include those permitted outright in the F-1 Zone, including
some timber harvest. However, I'''' am aware '''long-term plans for the Cascade Timberlands
holdings have included a mix of timber production, protection of scenic views, and recreation.
The Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 5 will not cause a significant change in, or
significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to forest
use, However, as discussed in the findings above, I have found the applicant failed to
demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 5 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 5 will be
incompatible 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. I believe it is feasible for the applicant to develop an adequate
wildfire plan, but unless and until the applicant does so, I find Tree Farm 5 is not compatible with
existing and proposed uses on Shevlin Park and nearby forest lands'.
Tree Farm 5, 247-14- 0250 -CU, 247-14-0002 1 -TP Page 44 of 91
3. South. To the south across Skyliners Road is The Highlands at Broken Top PUD zoned
LIAR -10 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 Hearn gs Officer finds these uses wi11 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 5 will be compatible with surrounding lands to
the south because they are developed with uses similar to what is proposed for The Tree Farm
i.e., rural residential subdivisions.
3, North. To the north are large vacant parcels zoned LIAR -10, 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 Farrn and Tree Farm 5 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 17,36,020(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. As discussed in the Hearings Officer's decision in Tree
Farm 1 and in the subdivision and PUD findings below, I have found the applicant is permitted
to develop The Tree Fare with private roads. In addition, 1 have found Section 17.36.020(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.1'
Second, Mr. Conway argues The Tree Farm is not compatible with projected uses on Rio
Lobo's property because the majority of Tree Farre 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 17.36.140(B)(3)(c). However, as discussed in the Hearings
Officer's decision in Tree Farm 1 and in, the, findings below, 1 have found Section
In a letter dated Deoeember 23, 2014, Charley Miller r=epre.serrtln9 1<>t„li r Tree LLC stated it would
illing 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
be 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 NorthWast Crossing Drive/Skylir e Ranch road
intersection adjacent to the new Pacific Crest Middle School.
Tree Far
247 -14.000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 45 of 91'
17.36.14O(B)(3)(c) of the s€.€bdivision ordinance is not applicable to Tree Farm 5, and therefore
the applicant is not required to provide more than one future road connection along the northern
boundary of The Tree Farre,
Rio Lobo's property and the vacant Miller Tree Farm property east of Tree Farm 1 are zoned
UAR-1 g and abut the Bend UGB. Consequently, the Hearings Officer finds the n 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 irban-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 tower density. The applicant's burden of proof states The Tree Farm was
conceived as a permanent transition area between urban and urbanizable 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 UART1 O zoned portion of The Tree Farm, and placing most of the open
space on the RR-1€O/VV -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 Farr
properties, the transition area created by The Tree Farm cluster/PUDs will be compatible with
their development.
LandWatch argues the applicant rnischaracterizes The Tree Farm as 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't provide a transition
to anything." The Hearings Officer disagrees. The properties east and north of The Tree Farm
are zoned UARa1O and are planned and zoned for eventual €nclusion in the Bend UGB 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, I find the
characterization of proposed The Tree Farm as a 'transition area' is accurate:
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farb b will be compatible with
existing and projected uses on surrounding lands to the north, east and south, but will not be
compatible with Shevlin Park and forest lands to the west because of deficiencies in the
applicant's wildfire plan and WMP.
C. These standards and any other standards of DC 18.128 may
be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to insure
that the standard wilt be met.
FINDINGS: 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.
F
N
XI
2
1. Section 18.128.040, Specific Use Sta
n
dare
s
A conditional use shall comply with the standard
which` it is Located and with the st
s of the zone in,
anda.rtts andconditions set forth in
28.370
DCC 18.128.045 through DCC 18.1
NGS: Compliance with the specific use standards for cluster developments in Section
.200 is addressed in the findings immediately below.
TreeF rrr;5
, 247;x14--0 025 CU. 247> -14 -000251 -TP Page 46 of 91
Section 18A>. 8 200, Cluster Developme t (Single Family Res€d
Uses Only)
ential
A. Such uses may be authorized as a conditional use only after
consideration of the following factors:
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the language of this paragraph means the factors
discussed'' in the findings below do not establish specific approval standards for Tree Farm
but rather identify issues 1 must consider.
Need for residential uses In the irrrrr€ediate area of
proposed devel
0
parent.
t
he
FINDINGS: The applicant addressed this factor by submitting as Exhibit 'X'to the Tree Farm
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, Tetherovv, 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
Bratton Appraisal Group. The staff report summarizes the reports in Exhibit "K" as folic w's:
"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 north. As of the time of the reports,
fire applicant indicates a standing inventory of 41 properties on the market, or
just under 5 !„4 ' months inventory. l he applicant notes that since January 2014,
the number of sales and pending sales has increased to an average of nearly ten
par rrnonth. Assuming current activity levels, the applicant concludes there is just
over a 4 month supply of inventory on the market
Out of a total of 178 single-family home list €7gs priced up to $2,000.000, 116
homes have sold in the past year and 29 are pending, absorbing inventory at just'
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, 1'''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 Farm, and the proposed dwellings
in Tree Farre 5 will address that need.
Environmental, social and economic impacts likely to
result from the development, ' including n impacts on
public facilities such as schools and roads.
, 247 4 -000250 -CU, 247x14- 0O2.51 -TP" Fags 47 os 91
FI
N
DINGS
Environmental >l pacts. Tree Farm 5 is configured so the ten proposed dwellings, the open
space tract, the rnul €-u€se paths, and the private roads are clustered on relatively level land near
the middle of The Tree Farm in the WA ''1 0 Zone, Segments of the recreationallrnountain bike
trail will be located in the open space tract. 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 uniper trees and brush cutting required for fire fuel reduction, As discussed
in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 5 will not interfere, and will be
compatible, with accepted forest practices on nearby public and private forest lands. However,
have the applicant failed to demonstrate the site for Tree Farm 5 is suitable for the proposed
cluster/PUD considering topography, wildlife habitat and wildfire hazards. I also have found that
without an adequate wildfire plan the applicant has not demonstrated The Tree Farm and Tree
Farm 5 will be compatible with current and projected uses on Sheulin Park and nearby forest
lands to the west.
In his Decem
environmenta
The Tree Farm pro
ber 11, 2014 letter, Paul Dewey argues the Hearings Officer should not consider
impacts based on a comparison of the impacts of clustering vs. development of
perty with the five dwellings that would be permitted under its current zoning,
opment patterns such as a traditional subdivision with 10 -acre lots and',
hout the 533 -acre property. His letter goes on to state:
or with alternate deve
dwellings, spread throng
`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,1 it was approved with 37 mostly ten -acre
lots on land zoned UAR-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 UAR-10
Zones. They are subject to the 10 -acre minimum lot size in those zones, and to the subdivision
standards in Title 17. As discussed in thefindings 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 17.16.100 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 public facilities and services, and utilities. l 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, I find there is nothing unproper in comparing
the propose clusteriPUDs to the alternative of a traditional subdivision when weighing the
environmental impacts of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 5.
$ The Cascade Highlands decision, included in the record as an attachment to Anthony Ragu
November 17, 2014 memorandum, states the 37 lots are all about 10 acres in size (with the ex
proposed Lot 22 that will be 18.05 acres)," and "the remaining acreage [approximately 20 acresl wil
be platted' as a separate lot" and designated not a part" of the subdivision.
Tree Farm 5. 247-14-000250- u, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Fate 48 of 91
LandWatch also argues the applicant has failed to demonstrate The Tree Farm will not have
negative environmental impacts on Tumalo Creek. Again, the Hearings Officer disagrees. I find
potential impacts on Tumalo Creek wouldbe limited to erosion and runoff from the west side of
the central ridge into the creek, and I find the applicant's drainage plan, discussed in detail
elsewhere in this decision, demonstrates runoff vvill be contained on site.
Because the Hearings Officer has found the applicant failed to demonstrate the site for Tree
Farm 5 is suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering wildlife habitat and wildfire risk, I
also find the applicant failed to demonstrate Tree Farm 5 adequately considers and addresses
this duster 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
5 will cluster ten residential lots and dwellings in the middle of The Tree Farm, close to Shevlin
Park and a considerable distance from the Bend UGB and its urban development. As discussed
above, l have found the proposed configuration of Tree Farm 5 will', provide a transition between
the Bend urban area and the vast forested land to the west. l find the proximity of Tree Fara 5
to Sheviin Park and to the extensive "Phil's Trail" mountain biking trail network in the DNF will
facilitate use of these resources by Tree Farms residents.
LandWatch 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 Trai 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 southern portion of the park.
Mr. Jorgensen recommended several measures to facilitate trail access and off-street parking.,
These would occur on the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property.; Specifically, Mr. Jorgensen
recommended the applicant dedicate a 20' -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 nrtountain bike trail within that easement in order to
provide a connection between the existing West 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 found in my Tree Fara 1 decision that II lack authority to require the
applicant;. to create the trail easement or improvements because the tentative plan for Tree Farm
1 indicates the easement and the improvements thereto would be located entirely within the
adjacent Miller Tree Fara property.
Economic Impacts. The applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that The Tree
Farm's clustered development pattern is the most cost-efficient manner in which to develop a
large rural tract, and much more efficient than pts lic facilities and services to widely
dispersed ten -acre lots. For example, clustering of dwellings requires shorter extensions of
streets and utilities required to serve residential lots. In addition, I find that if the applicant is able
Tree Farm 5, 247--14-000250-CU.l, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 49;.of
to secure domestic water throug
Water Com
pany there will be no
h connection to the City of Bend water system or the Avion
s.
ig
need for individual on-site we
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 Farm and Tree
Farm 5 will not place an undue burden on city water facilities.
Schools. The record indicates the RR 10 zoned portion of the Tree Farm, including all of Tree
Farm 1, is located in the Redmond School District. The applicant's burden of proof states the
applicant will request that the Bend`LaPine and Redmond school districts allow' the thirteen Tree
Farnn homesites in the Redmond School 'District -- three lots in Tree Farm 4 and all lots in Tree
Farm 5 -- to be transferred to the Bend -La Pine School district. As discussed,' above, three of
the district's schools' -- Miller Elementary, Summit' High School, and the new Pacific Crest
Middle School under construction - are located within approximately a mile of Tree Farre 5. The
record indicates neither school district was asked to comment on The Tree Farm proposal.
However, the Hearings Officer is aware the school districts respond 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 thereon. As discussed above, the applicant proposes to dedicate public
access easements over a private Tree Farm roads.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 will have positive sodal and
economic impacts, but €n the absence of an adequate wildfire plan and WMP, the applicant has
not demonstrated Tree Farm 5 will have entirely positive environmental impacts.
Effect of the level
area.
opment on the rural charac
ter 0t the
FINDINGS: Tree Farm 5 is located in a rural area west of the Bend UGB that is characterized'
by: (a) large vacant parcels' zoned UAR 10 to the east and north; (b) large UAR-10 zoned
parcels to the south across Skyliners Road with low-density residential development (The
Highlands at Broken Top) and a destination resort (Tetherow); (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 urbanizable lands to the
east and;, the vast resource lands to the west. The overall density of development in The Tree
Farre 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-1O Zone and will locate the majority
of open space in the RR -10 and WA Zones. For these reasons, I find Tree Farm 5 will be
consistent with the rural character of the area,
The applicant argues'The Tree Farm also wil provide econcnnic benefits byhavingthe HOA own and
pR. p
maintain PUD roads. thereby relieving the county of such maintenance expenses. However, in his
comments on the applicant's proposal, George Kolb noted that the county no longer is accepting roads
into its road maintenance network.
Tree Fara >5, 247 -14 -000290 -CU, 247-14-0 x0251 -Tl
Pape s0 of 91
4. Effect of the deve
wild
lif
opment on agricultural, forestry,
r other natural resource uses in the area.
FINDINGS: 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 5
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 slopes and road cuts. Finally, as also discussed
above, the Hearings Officer has found Tree Farm 4 will comply with all applicable requirements
in the WA Zone, However, 1 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 5 will be connpat ble with nearby forest lands or with the Tumalo winter deer range;
For the foregoing reasons the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 will not have a negative effect
on agriculture or forestry. But 1 have found the applicant has failed to demonstrate Tree Farm 5
wilf not have a negative effect on wildlife habitat in the winter deer range. Therefore, 1 find Tree
Farm 5 does not satisfy this criterion.
B. The conditional use s
findings are made:
fell
be
anted u
flies the folloina
An development and alterations of the natural
landscape, will be limited to 35 percent of the land and
at least 65 percent shall be kept is 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 wetlands,
creates or improves wildlife habitat, restores native
vegetation or provides for agricultural or forestry use
of the property after reclamation.
FINDINGS: The applicant's' burden of proof for Tree Farm, 5 indicates 87.4 of its 107.6 acres
(approximately 81 percent) will be preserved as permanent open space, therefore satisfying this
criterion.
Tree Farm 5, 247-i4-
0250-
2., The area not dedicated to open space or common use
may be platted as residential dwelling;, lots or parcels
that are a mini um of two acres and a maximum of
three acres in, size. Their use shall be restricted to,
single-family use.Single-family use may include
accessory ti yea and County authorized home
occupations. Uses permitted in the open space area,
may include the management of natural resources,
trail systems or other outdoor uses that are consistent
with the character of the natural landscape.
U. 247.1€4-00 2 1 -TP
Pag
51
f 91
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes that Tree Farm 5 will have ten 2 -acre residential lots with
single-family 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 mangennent consistent with preservation of wildlife habitat and the reduction of fire
fuels. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 satisfies this criterion.
In the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, in addi
tion to
compliance with the WA zone development
restrictions, uses and activities must be consistent
with the required Wildlife Management > Plan. The Plan;
shall be approved if it proposes all of the following in
the required open space area:
Preserves, protects and en
fiances wild
habitat for WA zone protecte
specified in the County Compre
(DCC Title 23); and
life
d species as
hensiive Plan
FIND lNGS: 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 5 is
suitable for the proposed cluster/PUD considering wildlife habitat because the WIMP does not
include sufficient information to identify how, when, and by whom the specific measures
identified in the WMP will be undertaken, or the timing of those activities. For the same reasons,
I find the applicant has not demonstrated the WMP satisfies this criterion
b,,
Prohibits golf' courses, tennis courts, ming
pools, marinas, ski runs or other developed
recreational uses of siliar ' intensity. Low'
intensity recreational uses such as properly'
located bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian
traits, wildlife viewing areas and fitness courses
may be permitted; and
FINDINGS: The only developed recreational use the applicant proposes for Tree Farm 5 open
space is the pedestrian/bicycle path and recreational trail systems. The Hearings Officer finds
these are low -intensity uses permitted by this paragraph.
c. Provides a supplemental, private open space
area on home lots by imposing special yard
setback of 100 feet on yards adjacent to
required open space areas, In this yard, no
structures other than fences consistent with
DCC 18.88.070 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
specific building envelope be shown on the
Tree E rni 5, 247`-14.00 X25 CU. 247-14-0002 -TP Page 52 of 91
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 5 shows all ten proposed lots are adjacent to the
open space within the WA Zone. As discussed above, the applicant has proposed building,
envelopes for all residential lots in Tree Farm 5. Those building envelopes show setbacks of at
least 100 feet between the adjacent WA -zoned open space and the building envelope.;
d Off-road motor vehicle use shall be pro bled
n 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 Ilearin s Officer finds the applicant will be required as a
condition of approval to prohibit off-road vehicle use on the Tree Farm 5'' open space tract, and
to enforce that prohibition, through the development's CC&Rs.
., Adequate corridors on the cluster property to
allow for wildlife passage through the
development,
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above concerning compliance with the general'
conditional use standards In Chapter 18.128, the applicant's WMP identified several existing
migration corridors in Tree Farm 5, including north -south corridors in the western portion and an
east -west > corridor along the southern part of The Tree Farm running parallel to Skylivers Road.
As discussed in the findings > above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has
found the clustering of dwellings in Tree Farre 5 and the preservation of the open space tract
preserve the existing migration corridorsl.
FIN
4. Alli lots within the development shall be contiguous to
one another except for occasional corridors to callow
for human passage, wildlife travel, natural features
such as a stream or bluff or 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 firms that special circumstances
warrant a wider corridor,
DINGS: The tentative plan for Tree Farm 5 shows m
contiguous exce
ea
Fl
N
rings'' Office
DIN
GS: Co
pt for the intervening right-of-way for Gol
r finds Tree Farm 4 satisfies this criterion.2°
ost of the resid
den Mantle Loop. Therefore, the
ential lots
AH 'applicable subdi'ision or partition requirements
contained in DCC Title 17, the Subdivision/Partition
Ordinance, shall be met<
pliance with the criteria in Title 17 is addressed in the find
ngs>below.
20 The record indicates the only gap between residential lots ,r thin The Tree Farm, other than thos
created by roads proposed between Lot 37 in Tree Farm 4 and Lot 43 in Tree Farr
Tree Farre 5, 247.14 -003250 -CU, 247.14 -000251 -TP
Page 53 of
The total number of units shall be establ'lshed by
reference to the lot 'size standards of the applicable
zoning district and combining zones.
FINDINGS: The RR -10 and WA Zones establish a general density of one dwelling per ten
acres. The applicant proposes ten residential lots on the 107.6 -acre Tree Farm 5 property,
therefore satisfying these standards.
r The open space of the proposed development shall be
platted as a separate parcel or in common own ship
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 ot, 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 cluster 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
roads are approved, a homeowner's association must
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 must be recorded with the deed restrictions or
bylaws of the homeowner's associationr<
FINDINGS; The tentative plan for Tree Farm 5 shows the 87.4 acres of open space would be
platted as a separate tract, The Hearings Officer the applicant will be required to show the Tree
Farm 5 open space as a separate tract on the final plat as a condition of approval.
The applicant submitted as Exhibit'''L» to its burden of proof a draft set of deed restrictions 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 Fara is located outside the Bend UGB. As
discussed'' in the findings above under the ad€ninistrative rules, the Hearings Officer has found
that to carry out the applicant's intent to prevent development on The Tree Farm open space
tracts in perpetuity, 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, and to provide
to the Planning Division copies t)f the recorded ded deed restrictions after recording:
Tree Fara 5, 247-14-0
00250
U. 247'1
4-0002 1-TPPage 54 of 91
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 .21
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in other
parts of the County's land use regulations, roads
within a cluster development may be private roads and
lots or parcels may be created that front on private
roads only. These roads must rneet 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 Legal >>Counsel shall be required for the
maintenance of private reads, 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
area dedicated for pubic road rights of way within or
adjacent to a planned or chaster development or
required by the County during cluster development
review shall be subtracted from the gross acreage of
the cluster development prior to calcu&atingr;
compliance with open space requirements.
F
ND!
N
a.
b.
GS: The Hearings Officer f
rids this subsection ,establishes the foll',o firrq:
private roads are permitted in Tree Farm 5
private PU
D roads must meet the county's private road standards;
c. a road maintenance agreement acce
ptable to the county
t be executed; a
nd
d. public' roads may be required in the subdivision where:
street continuation standards in Title 17 call for street connections and
the county f nds 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,
21 Exhibit "0" to the appl'icant's burden of proof indicates -the -applicant has -discussed -potential -acquisition
of tl e 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 UFS. Tree Farm open space not
so transferred would continue to be mi raged by the HOA. The Hearings Officer finds that because it is
likely any transfer of Tree Farris 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 this decision the legal effect
of such a transfer ori conditional use approval of Tree Farm 5.
Tree Fano 5, 247-14-5
00250 -CU, 247.14 -000251 -TP'
Page
;of 1
The applicant proposes to construct two private roads in Tree Farm 5 - a segment of Golden
Mantle Loop, and Canopy CO€.art. Golden Mantle Loop will connect with Ridgeline Drive in Tree
Farm 3 which connects with Skyliners Road, Access to Skyli vers Road for Tree Farm 5 lots will
be possible once the segment of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 has been
constructed. The applicant proposes to improve the private roads in Tree Farm 5 in accordance
with the 2O -foot -wide private road improvement standard in Title 17. The applicant proposes that
all Tree Farm roads will be owned and managed by The Tree Farm HOA, and the Hearings
Officer has found 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 lands for which a connection
to allow continuation of such street is required, Section 17.36.020(E3) 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 adcornr odate present and future through traffic within The Tree Fara 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 5 will satisfy this criterion.
9. An service connect'
nes
ons shall be the minimuminimumlength
essary and
and
erground where feasible.
FINDINGS: The preliminary utility plan for Tree Farm 5, Exhibit "F" to the ''burden of proof,
shows all new utility services will be located underground within road rights-of-way. The
Hearings Officer finds this proposal will assure service connections are the minimum length
necessary, therefore satisfying this criterion.
10. The number of raew dwelling units to be clustered does
not exceed 10.
11 The number of new lots
not exceed 10.
parcels to be created does
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes ten residential' lots in Tree Farm 5 clustered near the
southeast corner of the development and the north -central part of The Tree Farm, therefore
satisfying these criteria.,
12. The development is not to be served by a new
corrnunity sewer system or by any new extension of a
sewer system from within an urban growth boundary
or from within an unincorporated community
FINDING : iAp licant>;proposes to> serve the residential lots in .l..lee Fa To 5 with individual on-
site
n site septic systems, therefore satisfying this criterion.
Tree F
13. The develop r rent will not force a significant change in
accepted farm ear fewest practices on nearby lands
devoted to farm or forest use, and will not significantly
247-14 000250 -CU, 247.14-OOO251-TP Page 56 of 91
increase the cost of accepted far rr or forest practices
there;
FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings, above concerning compliance with the
applicable administrative rules in OAR 660€-664-040 and the general conditional use standards,
in Chapter 18.126, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Fara 5 will
not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farm or forest
practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use.
14. All dwellings in a cluster development must be
setback a minimum of 100 feet from the boundary line
of an adjacent lot zoned Exclusive Farm Use that is
receiving special assessment for farm use.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable
zoned Exclusive Parra Use (E U) adjacent to the subject property.
C. An applications shall
following inforrmtion
be acco
because there ar••e no lands
panted
by a plan, with the
A plat map meeting all the subdivision requirements of
DCC Title 17, theSubdivision/Partition Ordinance.
A draft of the, deed restrictions required by DCC
18A2
8.2
0
0(B)X7)1
FlNDlNGS: The applicant submitted a tentative plan for Tree Farm 5 including a plat map
showing all information required u€ der Title 17'. in addition, the applicant submitted as Exhibit
„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 applicants; 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, l
find Tree Farm 5 satisfies this criterion,
3. A written document establishing ars acceptable
homeowners association assuring the maintenance of
common property, if any, in the development. The
document shall include a method for the resolution of
disputes, by the association membership, and shall be
included as part of the bylaws.
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted as part of Exhibit "L°' t
CC&Rs and HOA bylaws, therefore satisfying this criterion.
Tree Pyr rr;; 247-14-0
Tree Farm 5
burden of proof
In the WA Combining Zone, the applicant shall subrrat
an evaluation ` of the property with a WU:ldlifa
Management plan for the open space area, prepared
by a wild! fe biologist that Includes the following;
25O CU. 247-14-0 2
A description of the condition of the property
and the current ability of the property to
Page 57 o 9;<
support use of the open space area by wildlife
protected by the applicable WA zone during the
periods specified in the domprehen iie plan;
and
A description of the protected species and
periods of protection identifiedby the
comprehensive plan and the current use of, the
open space area; and
A € sanagement plan that contains prescriptions,
that will achieve compliance with the wildlife'
protection guidelines in the comprehensive
plan. in overlay zones that are keyed to seasons
or particular times 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,
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted a WMP as Exhibit 1" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof.
Based on the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer finds the
WMP contains the information required in this subsection.
5. Photographs and a narrative description of the natural
landscape features of the open space areas o the
subject property. if the features are to be removed or
developed, the applicant shall explain why removal is
appropriate.
FINDINGS: The, applicant's burden of proof includes ,>aerial ;,photographs >of The Tree Farm and
surrounding property as well as a narrative description of the natural landscape features and
proposed open space areas in Tree Farre 5. The applicant does not propose to introduce any
landscaping, 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 VVMP 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, l'find the applicant has not fully satisfied this criterion.
6
A description of the forestry or agricultural' u
proposed, if any.
ses
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof states no agricultural uses are proposed for Tree
Fara 5, and that the only forestry uses proposed are fire fuels reduction treatment to reduce
*viidfi e risk and to ;mprove wildlife habitat.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer f
information required by these criteria.
d's the Tree Farre
Dimensional Standard
Tree Farm 5, 247--14-OOO25O--CU
, 24T 4- 00251 -TP
s:
proposal provides al'
Page 58 of 91
Setbacks and height limitations shall 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 Zones are did 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 5.
FlNDlN
Minimum area
determined by t
for a cluster developrsent s
he zone in which it is proposed.
hal
be
GS: The 107,6 -acre Tree Farm 5 meets the 40 -acre rr€lr€itr€uM size for duster
develo
develo
pments in the WA Zone. The RR -10 Zone does establish a minimum size for duster
pments
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.
FINDINGS: The applicant does not propose to develop Tree Farm 5 i€1 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
residential lots in those developments. I have found such concurrent development will be
required as a condition of approval for Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3.
F. Developments with private ro
pedestrian facilities that corn
requirements of Title 17.
ds s
hal
provide bicycle and
ply with the private road
FINDING The applicant' proposes to accommodate 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 s€rface. All other paved paths would run parallel to,
but be separate from, the cluster/FUD 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 local public and private roads
Bicycle and pedestrian connections 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 2O
foot right of way, with at least a 10 -foot wide useable surface,
shall be as straight as possible, and shall not be mom than
400 feet long.
Where the addition of a connection will reduce the
walling or cycling distance to an existing or planned,
transit stop, .school, shopping center, or neighborhood
Tree Farm, 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU 247 -14 -000251 -TP Page 59 of 91
FIND NO : The ap
Plan" that shows fo
park by
availbl
400 feet and by at least 50
e routes.
pe
rcent ove
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 n lghborhood park by 200 feet or
by at least 50 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 Gaal 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
land cape approved for protection in its natural state.
plicant submitted as Exhibit "C" to its burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 a "Trail
u
r types of trails within the Tree Farm:
1. a 10 -foot -wide paved section of Tree, Farm Drive from Skyllners Road to a point in Tree Farm
3;
2. several 8 -foot -wide "neighborhood trails" running along the private Tree Farre roads;
3. recreation/mountain bike trails leading across the open s
of The Tree Farm and connecting with the existing trail' syst
pace in the RR-10NVA zoned portion
em in Shevlin Park; and
4, existing "perimeter 'trails"' with "native surface" traversing the open space in the IRR-10MIA
zoned portion of The Tree Farm betwee€ Shevlin Park and the top of the central ridge on The
Tree Farm property.
The tentative plan for Tree Farm 5 shows no cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds
no mid -block bicycle connections are required in Tree Farm 5. I found in my Tree Farm 1
decision that construction of a bicycle and pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac on
Rideline Court to the nearby schools and beyond to the retail' and park uses in NIorthWest
Crossing would,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 Tree Farm
1 decision that a bicycle and pedestrian connection at the end of Ridg line Court is infeasible
and inappropriate. In my decision in Tree Farm 3, I found a bicycle and pedestrian connection at
the cul-de-sac end of Canopy Court is infeasible and inappropriate in light of the lack of through-
street connections in the vicinity. However, I note the proposed trail system in The, Tree Farm
,ill connect the Canopy Court cul-de-sac to Shevlin Park and to the DNF to the west.
Tree Farm 5, 247-14-00025
0-CLJ
247-1
4--000
0251 -TP
Pa
8 60` of
A Conditions of Approval Agreement for the cluster
development shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the
final plat for the development.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant grill be required as a condition of a
to record a Conditions, of Approval Agreement in accordance with this paragraph.
For the foregoing reason
satisfy all applicable condi
D. Title 17 of the
pproval
s, the Hearings Officer has failed to demonstrate Tree Farm will
tional use criteria in Chapter 18.128.
Deschutes County Cod
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
Fl
N
DIN
1, Chapter 17.16, Ap
Dev&iopment, plans
GS:
P
e, the
Subd
ivision/Partition Ordinance'
oval of Subdivision
Section 17.16A00, Required Find
gn
Tentative
Plans and Master
cgs 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 rrmodified will meet the requirements of
this title and Titles 18 through 21 of this code, and is in compliance
with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
A. The, subdivision >.contributes to orderly development and land'
use patterns n the area, and provides for the preservation of
natural features and resources such as streams, lakes,
natural vegetation, special terrain features, agricultural and
forest ands and other natural resources.
Orderly Development and Land Use Patterns in the Area. The applicant proposes to develop
Tree Farm 5 as cluster/PUD with an overall density of one dwelling;, per ten acres as permitted in
the RR -10 Zone. This density is the same as that in The Highlands at Broken Top PUD located
south across Skyliners Road, However, unlike that development with 37 ten -acre lots and
dwellings scattered throughout the 390 -acre site, Tree Farm 5 would have 2 -acre residential' lots
clustered In the north -central part of The Tree Farre in order to preserve a large tract of open
space. 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 urbaniable 'land to the east and Shevdin
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 UB or redeveloped. PUD roads would connect
with Skyl`€ners 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 Farr. Each residential lot will be
served by an on-site septic system and domestic water from the City of Bend, Avion, or
Tree Farre 5, 247-14-0
00250 -CU, 247-14-0
00251 -TP Page 61' of 91
groundwater wells. For these reasons, I find
and land use patterns in the area:
Tree Farr
5 wi'
con
tri
bute to orderly development,
Preservation of Natural Features and Resources. Natural features and resources on Tree
Farm 5 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 locatedon 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 Farre and Tree
Farrn 5 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 and Tree Farm 5 will be compatible
with Shevlin 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 and Tree Farm 5 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 5 is suitable for the proposed custerlPUD and is compatible with
surrounding lands. For the same reasons, 1 find the applicant has not demonstrated Tree Farm
5 will provide for the preservation of natural features and resources,
FIN
DING
The subdivision will not create excessive demand on public
facilities and services, and utilities required to serve the
d
evldprnenta
S. The public facilities and services req
treatment, water, roads, electricity, natural
g
as, >tele
protection. Each of these is addressed below
u i red,
by Tree Farm 5 include sewage
phone and cable service, and police and fire
Sewage Treatment. The applicant proposes to serve the residential lots with individual on-site
septic
septic systems. The applicant submitted `> as Exhibit ''"F" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof a
septic suitability study showing the soils on Tree Fare 5 are suitable for installation of on-site
septic systems. The Heanngs Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of
approval to obtain an approved septic site evaluation for each residential lot in Tree Farm 5 prior
to final plat approval:
Water. The applicant proposes to provide domestic water to the residential lots in Tree Farm
through one of three options: (1) extending and connecting to City of Bend water service as
proposed in the applicant's Preliminary Utility Plan; (2) extending and connecting to Avion Water
Company facilities; or (3) utilizing one or more individual wells on The Tree Farm property
andror the adjacent Miller Tree Farm property. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated
by reference herein, the Hearings Officerhas found the city's water system will have adequate
capacity to serve the residential lots in Tree Farm 5, and with the water facilities proposed by
the applicant, including 12 -inch and 24 inch water mains and pressure pumps at each -lot, the
city's water system will provide adequate pressure and fire flow at each lot. Therefore, l find
providing domestic water to The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 5 will not create excessive demand
on the city's water system. However, I have found that if the applicant does not obtain city water
service for The Tree Farr, it will be requ red as a condition of approval, and before submitting
for approval the final plat for any Tree Fa m development, to provide to the Planning Division a
Tree Farre 5, 247 -:4 -000250 -CU
_53 -TP Page 62of91
water system analysis prepared by a registeredprofessional engineer, demonstrating whatever
alternate source of domestic water is chosen will provide each residential lot with at least 40 psi
of water pressure at peak periods, 20 psi residual water pressure, and at least 2,000 gpm for
fire flow'
Roads. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Heanngs
Officer has found from the applicant's traffic study that the addition of traffic generated by the 50
proposed dwellings for The Tree Farm will not cause any affected transportation facilities to
operate below acceptable levels of service at buildout; and in the years 2017 and 2022 with the
addition of future traffic. Neither the road department nor the city identified the need for
additional right -of --way, or improvements to affected transportation facilities.
Electricity. The applicant submitted a will -serve letter from 'Pacific Power for electric service in
Exhibit 'G" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof.
Natural Gas. The applicant submitted a will -serve,; letter from Cascade
c
e in Exhibit "G" to the Tree Parra 5 burden of proof.
Natural Gas for gas'
Telephone. The applicant submitted a will -serve letter from CenturyLink for telephone service in
Exhibit "G" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof,
Cable. The applicant submitted a will -serve letter from Bend Broad
Exhibit "G" to the Tree Para 5 burden of proof,
band for cable service in
Police, Police protection will, be provided by the Deschutes County Sheriff.
Fire Protection. Fire protection will 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 corn lents can be summarized as follows:
1. Standards for fire apparatus access roads. The OFC requires that fire apparatus access
roads: (at 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 Fara 3 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 protectian 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 fine
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
Tree Far# 5. 247 1
4-000250-C
24? -1
4-000251-T
Page 63
by the city, In addition, the applicant's Pre liminary Utility Plan diag
ram, included in Exhibit "E" to
the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof, shows fire hydrants placed at 40
0 -foot intervals along all PUD
roads abutting the residential lots. As also discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found that
f 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 Fara development, to provide to the Planning 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 1000 gpnn for fire flow.
3, Other fire service features,. The OFC requires that each dwelling in Tree Farm
address number placed on a monument, pole or other sign so that it is plainly visible
private road. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of a
to provide address numbers as required by the OFC.
have an
from the
For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the conditions of a
the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 will not create excesslve de
services and unlit€es required to serve the, development.,;
pproval
pproval described above,
mand on public facilities
The tentative plan for the props sed subdivision meets the
requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 92W090.
FINDINGS: ORS 92.090(1) states a new subdivision can only use the same name if it is a
continuation of an existing subdivision, with a sequential numbering system, and must either be
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 clusteriUDs to be known as Tree Farms 1
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 hell 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 would be 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 5. I find that
with imposition of this condition of approval, Tree Farm 5 will comply with;;, Subsection (2),
Subsections (3), (4)
to Tree Farm 5.
and (5) of the statute relate to final
platting and therefore are
For subdivisions rr portions thereof' pro
Surface Mining, Impact Area (SMA) zone und
Deschutes County Code
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this crite
property is not located within a SMIA Zone.
Tree Fared 5, 247.14-0002
o -c
24.7.1
4-00
0251 -TP
rion
not a
plica
not a
pplicable
posed w
er Title
ble beca
use
hin
of the
he subject
Page 64
f
The subdivision ria
Surveyor,
e
has been
approved '''by the County
FINDINGS: Exhibit °P" to the Tree Fere 5 burden of proof indicates the proposed names for
The Tree, Farm cluster; PUDs have been approved by the County Surveyor, therefore satisfying
this criterion.
Section 17.16.105, Access to
u
bdlvisions
No proposed subdivision shell be approved unless, it will 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 improved collector or arterial, or in cases where the
subdivision has no direct access to such a collectoror arterial, buy
demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision from
collector or arterial Beets relevant County standards and has been
accepted for mail tenan a purposes.
FINDINGS: Access to Tree Farm 5 wlt
road improved to the county's collector
satisfying this criterion.
be from Skyliners Road, 'a designated county collector
road standards and maintained by the county therefore
Section 17.11 .115,, Trac l
P
Guidelines for Traffic >>1
act Studies
pact Studies
The follovving vehicle trip generation thresholds shall
determine the level and scope of transportation
analysis required for a new or expanded development
T
raffia 1
m
pact Analysis (TIA): if
t
he
development or change in use will generate
more than 200 trip ends and 20 or more PM
peak hour trips, then a Traffic' Impact Analysis
(TIA) shall be required
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted a traffic study prepared by Kitteison' & Associates, included'
in the record as Exhibit "H' to the burden of proof for Tree Farm 5. The traffic study was
:submitted bee use the applicant's traffic 'engineer predicted trafficgenerated by the 50 �w,e1ti€cgs
€n The Tree Fara would generate over 400 trip ends. The traffic study concludes traffic
generated by The Tree Farm will not exceed the capacity of affected transportation facilities at
buildout, or in 2017 and 2022 with the addition of other traffic from the surrounding area. The
traffic study also found that no additiona'l right-of-way or improvements are required, and neither
Tree Farm 5, 247-1€4-0 t 250 , 247r 14-
0251 -TP" Page 65 of 91
the road department nor the city indicated the need for addition right -of -may or im
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion.
Cha
pter 17.36, Design Standa
Section t 7.36.02
rd
s
, Streets
proverr€ents.
A. The location, width and grade of streets shal',l 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
shatassure an adequate traffic circulatiori system for all
modes of transportation, includ
automobiles, with intersection a
curves appropriate for th
the terrain. The su
ing pedestrians, bicycles and
co
subd
ad�o
shat
for streets set forth 1
ngles, grades, tangents > and
e traffic to be carried, considering
bdivision or partition shall provide for the
ntin ation of the principalstreets existing in the adjoining
ivlsion or partition or of their property projection when
ring property which is not subdivided, and such streets
be of a width not less than the minimum requirements
n DCC 17.36.
FINDINGS. The applicant proposes to construct all Tree Farm roads in conformance with the
applicable county local road standards - i.e., the public local road standards for Sage Steppe
Drive, and the private local road standards for the private roads in Tree Farm 5. The proposed
road layout generally follows the topographical contours of The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 5,
and will provide direct access to each proposed residential lot. Separate multi -use paths are
proposed along all new roads to provide adequate circulation for bicycles and pedestrianand>'
adequate separation from vehicular traffic. There are no principal streets in adjoining partitions
or subdivisions that require the continuation of those streets into Tree Farm 5. No alterations to
road layout or design were identified by the road department. For these reasons, the Hearings
Officer finds Tree Farm 5 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. Panned- developments shall include public streets
where necessa to accornrodate, «resent and future throas:h
traffic. (Em
ph
asis a
dded.)
FINDINGS With the exception of Sage Steppe Drive, the roads in The Tree Farm would be
private roads as permitted for cluster/PUDs. 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
appl'icant 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 L'
22 In > his January 6, 2015 letter on behalf of Rio Loco, Miles > Conway states the applicant is offering. only a
temporary' public access easement over the system of Tree Farre roads, and therefore The Tree Farm
HOA, which would own and manage the subdivision roads, could erect barriers to 'through traffic" Rwithin
Tree Farm 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU 247 -14 -000251 -TFC` Page 66 of 91`
In his August 28, 2014 comments on the applicant's proposal, George Kolb stated that
Paragraph (B) of this section requires the applicant to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for, and
improve to the county's pudic 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 RioLobo property, but also to accommodate through traffic within The
Tree Farm itself.
Both Mr. Conway and Mr. Russell argue the language in Paragraph (B) provides no discretion to
deviate from the public road dedication requirement. The Hearings Officer disagrees. I find the
plain language of this paragraph makes dear the public road requirement is contingent on a
finding that such a road is "necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic." In his
December 30, 2€ 14 memorandum, Jeffrey Condit argued the dedication of public road right-of-
way does not meet this "necessity" test.
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 "taking" under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in Nollan v, California Coastal Commission„
483 US 825, 107 S Ct 3141, 97 L Ed 2d 677 (1987), Dolan vCity of Tigard, 512 US 374. 114 S
Ct 2309, 129 L Ed 2d 304 (1994), and Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 133 8 Ct 2586, 186 L Ed
2d 697 (2813). 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 the 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 improvements to which the off-site property owner consented. I 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 offsite improvement were proposed.
Even assuming r; 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:
the subdivision. Mr. Conway is mistaken. The applicant's burden proof for Tree Farm 5 makes clear the
public access easements for Tree Farm roads will be per€manent. For example, the Tree Farm 1 burden of
proof states at page 54 that the private streets would have "public access to be dedicated _ with the final
plat." (Emphasis added.) It is the easement across the Miller Tree Farm property for tile, secondary
emergency access road that will be "interim`" until such time as the Miller Tree Farm property is developed
with public` roads that will connect Sage Steppe Drive and Skyliners Road
Tree F
rr 5, 247.14 -000250 -Cd, 247.14 -000251 -TP Page 67 of 91
'74 public street is not necessary to accommodate the through traffic that would
be generated by development of the Rio Lobo property under the existing UAR-
10'' zoning. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a December 29, 2014 analysis provided by
Joe Bass€ran PE, of Kitteison responding to Rio Lobo's December 11, 2014,
testimony prepared by Marten Law and Lancaster Engineering ('Kittelson
Memo). The Kitteison Memo confirms that the boa/ 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.1 As the County notes,
`[tJhe transportation effects [on the surroundingstreet system] of suchnc�€al fel
development would be de €ninim€is.'
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.
Developrnent of the Rio Lobo property as a destination resort would require
compliance with the multiple criteria of DCC Chapter 19,106, which, at
minimum, would require a new traffic impact analysis and approval of a Master
Plan. Most significantly, as noted in the Kitteison Memo, DCC 19.106.0060(C)
requires all destination resorts to '`have direct access onto a state, county, or city
rial 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
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 imminent, viableor would otherwise be compliance
with Chapter 19.106.
Although UAR-10 zoning does anticipate eventual urbanization, urbanization of
the Rio Lobo property requires subsequent legislative 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." There are
thus multiple future opportunities to obtain the necessary connections ire the
event the properties are added to the UB.
Such
ve fut€yre development does not justify imposition of a can( tion
requiring, the Applicant to dedicate additional right-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
Trey; 'Fara 5, 247.14-00025
247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 6
of 91
right-of-way will be available for use at such time as Rio Lobo andioiller Tree
Farm properties are developed and the requirement for its dedication and,
construction can be imposed at that time. The fact that Rio Lobo may have to
await development of the Miller Property for the connection to Skyliners 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 17.36.02O(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.
1
3indeed,< the County is only requesting dedication of additional right- ofway; it is not
requesting any change in the construction of the street system. The requirements for
local public streets and local private streets are virtually the same. See DCC Chapter
Table.
'°Given the rotative location of the Rio Lobo, property vis-a-vis the Miller Property and the
Anderson Ranch property [located north of the Rio Lobo property], which are directly
adjacent to the current Bend city limits, the Rio Lobo property is unlikely to be added to
the Bend UGB unless or until (or after) the Miller and Anderson larch properties are
added."
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 Skyliners Road
be Section 17.6.040. Ex
sting Streets
Whenever existing streets, adjacent to or within a tract, are of
inadequate width to accommodate, the increase in traffic expected
from the subdivision or partition by the county roadway network
pan, additional rights of way shall be provided at the titre of the
land division by the applicant. Durng 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: There are no existing streets adjacent to Tree
Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farre 5.
ca
ection 17.3
6.050, Contin
Farm
ation of Stree
5
an
d
h
erefore
h
eH
earngs
Subdivision or partition streets which constitute the continuation of
streets in contiguous territory shall be aligned so that their
centerlines coincide.
Tree Farm 5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 59 of 91
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applica
no streetssssthat would constitute a continuation of other streets.
Secti
on 17.36 06
0p: M
inirrrum Rig
ble becau
htofWay a
nd
se Tree
Farm5 has
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 ordinance, the standards in the zoning ordinance
shall prevail
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to improve all cluster/PUD roads to the county's standards
for pub lic>>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 5 satisfies this criterion;
s
ecti
on 17.3
6.070 Future Resubd
ivision
Where a tract of land is divided into lots or parcels of an a
more, the Hearings Body may require an arrangement of ots or
parcels and streets such as to permit future resubdivision Ire
conformity to the street requirements contained in this title.
OF`
FINDINGS: : The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 states the applicant intends that
The Tree Farm never will be annexed into the Bend UGB or redeveloped, The applicant has
proposed deed restrictions for The Tree Fara 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
5 permitting future resubdivision,
f. Section 17.6 080, Future Extension of Streets
When necessary to give acce
division of adjoining land, strew
of the subdivision or partition.
ss to or permit a satisfactory future
ts shall be extended to the boundary
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
UAR-10 Rio Lobo property to the north. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant is not
requ \ l \ \ 1 ; \ \ \ \ \ \ ` 1 \ 1 \ \ ed off_
site secondary emergency access road, to accommodate future, through traffic fro ,rn the Rio
Lobo pro
perty.
For these reasons, l' find Tree Farm 5 satisfies this criterion
g. Section 17.3
6
10
0, Frontage Roads
Tree Farm 5, 247.'14•-00 25O -CU, 247-14-00025 TP Page 70 at 91
If a land 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, An, 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: ; Tree Farm 5 does not abut Skyline€rs Road, a designated county collector, r
therefore the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farm 5.
Fl
NDI
N
a
ad, and
hSection 17.38,118, Streets Adjacent to Railroads,, Freeways and
Parkways
When the area to be divided'' adjoins or contains a railroad, freeway
or parkway, provision may be required' for a street apiciroximately
parallel to and on each side of such, right of way at a distance
suitalble for use of the land between the street and railroad, freeway
or parlay. In the case of a railroad, there shall be a and strip of not
Tess than 25 feet In width adjacent and along, the railroad right of
way and residential property. If the intervening 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, shah be determined
with due consideration at cross streets of a minimum distance
required for approach grades to a future grade separation and right
of way widths of the cross street.
GS. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not, applica
ble because The Tree
nd Tree Farm 5 are not adjacent to a railroad, freeway or parkway,
Section 1
7,38,12
0, Street Nam
es
Farm
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 hi the County.
FINDINGS: Exhibit "Q" to the Tree Farm € b burden of proof indicates the applicant has received'
county approval for all Tree Farm road names, therefore satisfying this criterion:
Within an urban growth boundary, sidewalks shall' be
installed on both sides of a public road or street any in any
special pedestrian way within the subdivision or partition,
Tree Farm 5, 247 -14 -000,250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 71 of 91
FINDINGS: The H
and along any collectors and arterials leproved in
acc€ rdance with'the subdivision or partition.
eanngs Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because Tree Far e -n 5 is,
not located within th
Fl
fro
N
e
Ben
d UGB.
Within an urban area, sidewalks shall be required along
frontage roads only on the side of he frontage road abutting
the development.
DINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because there are no
ntage roads in Tree Farm 5.
Sidewalk requirements for areas outside of urban area are set
forth in section 17,48,176. In the absence of a special
requirement set forth by the Road Department Director under
DCC 17.43.030, sidewalks and curbs are never required in
rural areas outside unincorporated communities as that term
is defined in Title 18
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds no sidewalks are required in Tre
located in a rural area outside unincorporated connenuesities.
k' Section 17.3
A. Pe
6 140,, Bicycle, Pedestrian and
destrian and Bicycle Circ
Farm 5 because it is
Transit Requirements
ation withi
nS
b
division,
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 ithiln the subdivision and
existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, and
(c) otherwise meet the needs of cyclists and
pedestrians, considering the destination and length of
trip.
FINDINGS: : The 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 will
provide access, to Skyliners Road and beyond to NorthVVest 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 oen space tracts and linking with trails in
Shevlin Park and the DNF to the west. For these reasons, the hearings, Officer finds'' Tree Farrri
5 satisfies this criterion.
B. ubdiv'isie n Layout,
Tree Farm >5, 247.14 -000250 -CU, 247-14 000251 -TP
Page 72 of 91
Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets shall be allowed only
where, due to topographical or environmental,
constraint, the size and shape of the parcel,or alack
of through -street connections en 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 -db -sacs to streets or
neighborhood activity' centers on the opposite side of
the block.
FINDING; The applicant does not propose any cul-de-sacs in Tree Farm 5, and the efore this
criterion is not applicableAs discussed in the Hearings Officer's decision for Tree Farm 1, ,l
found the topographical information on he Tree Farm 1 tentative plan clearly shows a steep
slope east and southeast of the eastern terminus of Ridgeline Court in Tree Farm '1, As
discussed in my decision in Tree Farm , l found the tentative plan for Tree Farm 3 shows no
through street connections in the vicinity of the western terminus of Canopy Court in Tree Farm
3. For these reasons, I have found these cul-de-sacs in these two cluster/PUDs are justified by
topography and the lack of through -street connections:
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections between streets
shall be provided at mid -block where the addition of a
connection will reduce the walking or cycling distance
to an existing or planned neighborhood activity center
by 400 feet and by at le st 50 percent over other
available routes.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicabie to Tree Farm '5 because
there are no existing or planned neighborhood activity centers fo which mid -block connections
are warranted or necessary,
Tre
Local roads shall align and connect with themselves
across collectors and arterials. Connect€ergs to
existing or planned streets and undeyeipp9d.
properties shall be provided at no greater than 400
foot intervals.
Connections shall not be more than 400 feet Iona andl
shall be a stralossblee
Facilities and
1
lmprovernen is
Bikeways may be provided by either a separate paved
path or an on -street bike lane, consistent with the
retirements of DCC
Pedestrian access may be provided by sidewalks or a
separate paved path, consistent with the requirements
of DCC Title 17.
Farr 5, 247-14--000250-CL.1, 247-14- 025 -TP
Page 3 of 91
Connections shall have a 0 -foot right-of-way, with at`<
ded
least a 1€ ,ft,rat 1reable sr€rface. (Emphasis ad
FIND lNGS: The Hearings Officer ' Inds there are no existing local roads that must be aligned
across Sk liners Road,
In the Hearings Officer's decisions in Tree Farms 1 through 4, discussed the meaning and
application of ''the above -underscored language and found that read in context, the
"connections" required by Section 1736140(B)(3) and (4) are bicycle/pedestrian path
connections and not road connections. I also found application of this requirement to rural
subdivisions in general, and to The Tree Farm in particular, would be inappropriate and
infeasible, and that in any case the applicant demonst ated an exception to this requirement is
justified by the benefits provided by The Tree Farm and Tree Farm 5, arid particularly the
extensive multi -use path/trail system.
Because no part of Tree Farm 5 abuts the Rio Lobo or Miller T
Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to Tree Farre 5.
1 Section 17.3
6.15
0, Blocks
e F
property, the H
earijng
s
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 vwith the limitations of the
topography.
FINDINGS: Section 17.08.030 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
waterways, or corporate boundary Lines of a city." The Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 does
not contain any "blocks" inasmuch as no area of land within the proposed development is
bounded by streets or the other listed features,
By Within an urban growth boundary, no bock shafl be longer
than 1,200 feet between street centerlines. In blocks over 800
feet in length, there shall be a cross connection consistent
with the provisions of DCC 17.36 140.
FINDING: Tree Farm 5 is riot Iodatedwithin the Be
finds this criterion is not applicable:
Secti
on 17.36 160, Easements
d UGB. Therefore, the''"H
earings Officer
A. Utility easements. Easements shall be provided along
property lines when necessary for the placement of overhead
or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or
partition with electric power, communication facilities, street
lighting, sewer lines, water Mines, gas lines or drainage, Such
easements shall be labeled "Public Utility Easement" on the
tentative and final plat; they shall be at least 12 feet in width
and centered on lot lines where possible, except utility pore
Tree Farr: , 247-14-0002 0-C , 247 -14 -000251 -TP'
Page 74 cif 91`
guyllne easements al ng the rear of lots or parcels adjacent
to unsubdivided land may be reduced to 10 feet in width.
FINDINGS; The Tree Farm 5 burden of proof states the applicant intends to locate all utilities in
roadside trenches, either v"€thin the private road rights-of-way or within multiple use easements
(MUEs) paralleling the rights-of-way, as shown, on the Preliminary Water Pan included in the
record as Exhibit " to the burden of proof, The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of
approval the applicant be required to show all MUEs on the final plat for Tree Farm 5.
Drainage. If a tract is traversed by a watercourse such as a
drainaewyg channel or stream, there shall be provided
stormwater easement or drainage right of way conforming,,
substantially with the Innes of the watercourse or in such
further width as will be adequate for the purpose, Streets or
parkways parallel to major watercourses or drainageways
may be required.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not a
property is not traversed by a watercourse.
5
ection 17.3$ 170, Lots - Size and Sha
p
pe
plica
ble
because the su
bject
The size, width and orientation of ots or parcels shall,' be
appropriate for the location of the land division ani'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, min mu r la t 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 5 will be two acres in size, The applicant
submitted a septic suitability study, included in the record as Exhibit "F" to the Tree Farre 5
burden of proof, indicating the soils on the subject property are suitable for on-site septic
systems. The Hearings Officer finds the size, width and orientation of the proposed lots are
appropriate for the proposed planned development, consistent with the minimurn lot size in the
RR -10 Zone, and large enough to accommodate on-site septic systems. l also find the applicant
will be required as a condition of approval to obtain an approved septic site evaluation for each
residential lot in Tree Farm 5 prior to final, plat approval,
Section 17.3
6,1803 Fronts
0
e
Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road, or when
located in a planned development or cluster development, a
private road, for at least 50 feet, except for lots or parcels'
fronting on the bulb; of a cul de sac, then the mirinum
frontage shall be 30 feet, and except for partitions off of LLS
Tree Farm 5. 247 -14 -001250 -CEJ, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Page 75 of 91
Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads,
Frontage for partitions off U.S, Forest 'Servide or Bureau of
Land Management roads shall be decided on a case by case
basis based on the location of the property, the condition of
the road, an the orientation of the proposed parcels, but
shall be at east 20 feet. In the La Pine Neighborhood
Planning Area Residential Center District, lot widths may be
less than 50 feet n width, as specified in DCC 18.61, Table 2:
La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Zoning Standards
Road frontage standards in destination resorts shall be
subject to review in the conceptual master plane
All side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines o
radial to curved streets wherever practical.
r
FINDINGS: With the exception of Lot 1 in Tree Farm 1, all proposed residential lots in The Tree
Farm and Tree Farm 5 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. Generally, Tree Farm 5 lot lines are at right
angles to Golden Mantle Loop or radial to the cu ed Canopy Couto For the foregoing reasons,,
find Tree Farm 5 satisfies this criterion.
p. Sectio
n 17.36.19
0, Throu
gh Lots,
Lots or parcels with double frontage should be avoided except
where they are essential to provide separation of r•esidentiall
development from major street or adjacent nonresidential activities'
to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation.
A planting screen easement, of at east 10 feat In width and across
which there shall''' be no right of access may be required along the
lines of ots or parcels abutting such a traffic artery or other
incompatible usee
FINDINGS: Section 1`x.08.030 defines 'Through lot" as "an interior lot having frontage on two
streets." The tentative plan for Tree Farm shows Lots 42 and 47 will have frontage on both
Golden Mantle Loop and Canopy Court. However, 1 find no planting screen easement is
required an these lots in order to prevent road access across these lots.
Section 17.36.200, Corner Lots
Within an urban growth boundary, corner ots 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.
FINDINGSI The Hearings Officer::i€nd
s this criterion is not a
pplicable because Tree Farm 5
r. Section 17.36.210, Solar Access Performance
As much solar access as feasible shall' be provided each I
or parcel in every new subdivision or partition, considering
Tree Farm>;5. 247-14-000251 -Cts, 247-14-9C x291 -TFC
Pace 76 f 91.`
topography, developrent 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 solar
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 solar
restrictions on burdened properties for the benefit 1
parcels receiving, the solar access,
height
ots or
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
Fl DINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the size, shape and orientation of the residential lots in
Tree Farm 5 will allow for the dwellings on these lots to meet the solar access stand
ards,
Section 17,36.220, Underground 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 bats. The subdivision or partition shall' be
responsible for complying with requirements of this section and
shall:
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this sections is not applicab
located outside the Bend UGB.
Section 17.3
£.260, Fire
rds
e because the
property is
Whenever possible, a' sinimum of two points of access to the
subdivision or partition shall be provided to provide assured access
for emergency vehicles and ease resident evacuation.
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes two points of access to The Tree Faris and Tree Farm
the main PUD road that intersects with Skyliners Road at the southern boundary of Tree Fars -
1, and the proposed secondary emergency access road running from the sou hem terminus of
Sage Steppe Drive in Tree Farm 1 south through the adjacent Mil er 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 gateilock system that allows the gate to be
Tree Farm 5, 247-14-000250-Cii, 24714
-000251-TP
Page 77 t 91
opened by residents and guests. l also have found the applicant will be required as a condition
of approval to develop Tree Farms 1, 2 and 3 concurrently to assure access to Tree Farm
residential lots through both the primary Bluster/ PUD road and the secondary access. For these
reasons, and with imposition of this condition of approval, l find Tree Farm 5 satisfies, this
criterion,
5
ection 17.3
6,2
80
Water and Sewer 1,, nes
Where required by the applicable zoning ordinance, water and sewer
braes 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 ail new
subdivisions or partitions,
FINDINGS: No new sewer lines are proposed because residential lots in Tree Farm 5 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
approval to construct all required water lines in compliance with the city's standards and
specifications therefor.
v. Section 17,36,29
0
hidividual Wells
n 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 and division. Not rithstanding DCC 17.36.300,
individual wells for subdivisions are allowed when parcels are larger'
than 10 acres.
FUNDINGS: The applicant has stated its preferred alternative for providing dorn stir water to the
residential lots in Tree Farm 5 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 € €ore groundwater
wells. The applicant submitted as Exhibit "M" to the Tree Farm 5 burden of proof well logs for
two wells on property in the vicinity' of the subject property demonstrating that water is available
in the area. Therefore; the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 satisfies this criterion.
Section 17.3
6.3
0031 public Water System
In any subdivision or partition where a public water sy
required or proposed, plans for the water system shall be su
and approved by the appropriate state or federal
s
tem is
lam itted'
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that if the residential lots in Tree, Farm 5 are served by
City of Bend or Avion water service, compliance with this criterion will be accomplished through
he city's or Avian's co€npliance with applicableblit water system requirements.
3. Chapter 17,44, Park Development
Sect
n 17.44.010, Dedica
Tree Farm >5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
tion Ea
f .and
Page 78 of 91;
FI DIN
the boun
are not a
D
For subdivisions or partitior€s outside of an urban growth
boundary, the developer shall set aside a r nimum area of
the development equal to $350 per dwelling unit within the
development, if the land is, suitable and adaptable for such
purposes and is, generally '''located in an area planned for
parks.
For dither DCC 17.44010 (A) or (B), the developer shall either
dedicate the land set aside to the public or develop and,
provide maintenance for the land set aside as a private park
open to the public:.
The P a € ing Director or Hearings Body shall
whether or not such land is suitable for park p
determine
urposes,
E. If the developer dedicates the land set aside in accordance
with DCC 17.44,O1O(A) or (B), any approval by the Planning
Director or Hearings Body shall be subject to the c€ nd`€tion
that the County or appropriate park district accept the deed,
dedicating such land.
F. DCC 17.4 .01 O 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.
The, record ind
€sates all proposed residential lots in Tree Farm 5 are located within
dares of the park d
pplicabie.
'strict,and therefore the Hearings Officer finds these requirements
b. Section 17.44.020, Fee in Lie a of Dedication
Tree Far r^ 5, 247-
A., In the event there is no suitable park or recreation area or site
in the proposed subdivision or partition or adjacent thereto,
then the developer shall, in lieu of setting aside land, pay into
a park acquisition and development fund a sum of money
equal' to the fair market value of the land that will have been
donated under DCC 17,44,010 above. For the purpose of
determining the fair market value, the latest value of the land,
unplatted and without improvements, as shown on the
County Assessor's tax roil shall be used. The sum so
contributed shall be deposited with the County Treasurer and
be used for acq lsition of suitable area;, for park and
recreation purposes or for the development of —i''ocreation
facilities. Such expenditures shall be made for neighborhood
or community, facilities at the discretion of the Board and/or>
applicable park district'.,
4 -000250 -CU, 247-14-00
0251 -TP Page 79 of 91
DCC 17,4 ,020 shall not appy 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,
HIDING : The, Hearings Officer finds that because all proposed residential lots in Tree Farm 5
are located within the boundaries of the park district, this section does not apply.
4. Chapter 17A8, Design and Construction Specifications
Sectio
n 17.48.140, Bike ,ray
s
General Design Criteria.
1, Bikeways sha
current stand
1. M
u
be designed in accordance with the
ards and guidelines of the Oregon
(000T) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the American
Association of State highway Transportation Officials
(AA HTO) Guide for Development of New Bicycle
Facet€ties, and the Deschutes County Bicycle Master
Plan, See DCC 17.48 Table B.<
An collectors and arterials shown on the County
Transportation Plan map shall be constructed to
inc ode bikeways as defined by the Deschutes County
Bicycle Master Plan.
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.
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 shad be provided.
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,
FINDING: 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
Shevlin Park to the west. From that point to the intersection of Golden Mantle Loop and
Tree Farre 5, 247.14-0002 50 -CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
Fuge
0of91'
Rideline Drive, and throughout the rest of The Tree Farm, the multi -use paths are proposed to
be eight feet wide. The 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, 1 find,
Tree Farm 5 satisfies these criteria
Fl
NDN
B
ike Lanes. Six foot bike lanes shall be used on new
construction of curbed arterials and collectors.
D. Should
GS: The Hearings Office
er Bikeways.
Shoulder bikeways shall be used on new
of uncurbed arterials and collectors.
construction
Shoulder bikeways shall be at least four feet wide.
Where the travel ane on an existing arterial''' or
collector is not greater than eleven feet, the bikeway
shall be a minimum of four feet wide.
r finds the
collectors or arterials are proposed.
criteria are not applicable because no new
E. Mountain Bike Trails.
lei
ountain bike
may be used a
facilities.
dirt or other unpaved surface! trails
recreational or interim transportation
Trails used for transportation shall have a two foot
Millium 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 narrower with less clearing of
vegetation.<
TIDINGS: As shown on Exhibit "C" to the Tree Farm burden of proof, the applicant proposes
a network of soft -surface recreation/mountain bike trails linking with trails in Shevlin Park and in
the DNF to the west. Segment of these trails would be located in the southern portion of Tree
Farm 5. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds these criteria are applicable to Tree Farm 5, The
applicant's Tree Farm 5 burden of proof states the proposed recreation/ ountain bike trails will
satisfy these standards, and I find the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to do
so.
Se ion 17.48.160
, Road Development Requires ents Standards
A.. Subdivision Standards. All roads in new su
either be constructed to a standard acceptable
in the county maintained system or the subdivision s
shall
for inclusion,
hall be
bdivisions
Tree Farm's, 247.14 -000250 -
part of a special road district or homeown
planned unit development.
u
, 247 -14 -000251 -TP
ers ssociation'''in
Page 8l of e1%
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to dedicate to the public and to rove Sage Steppe Drive
in compliance with the county's standards for public rural roads, and to irnprove all public and
private PUD roads with 20 feet of paved surface ps 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 5 satisfies this criterion.
B. Improvements of Public Flights of Way.;
1
The developer of a subdivision or partition will be
required to improve all public ways that are adjacent
or within the land development.
AH 'improvements within public rights of way shall
conform to the improvement standards designated in
DCC Title17 for the applicable road classification,
except where a zoning ordinance sets forth different
standards for a particular zone,
FINDINGS: The only public right-ofvway adjacent to the subject property is Skyliners Road, an
improved county collector. As discussed above, the road department did; not identify any
necessary improvements to ' kyliners 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 5 satisfies this criterion.
C. Primary Access Roads. The primary access road for any new
subdivision shall be improved 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 transpoftatiorl plana 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 Farm Drive, Golden
Mantle Loop, and Ridgeline Drive. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a
condition of approval to improve these roads to the county's standards for local private roads in
Table "." to Title 17. in addition, as discussed in the findings above, I 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.
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.
Tree Farm >5, 247-14-00 250 -CU, 24i-14-000251 TP Pa
e82of91»
FINDINGS. The road department did not identify the need for a secondary access rod.
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 Farrn 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 4 -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,23
E. Stubbed Roads. Any
development boundary
de -sac bulb.
proposed road that terminates at a
shall be constructed with a paved 'cul -
FIND NG : The Hearings Officer finds this cdtenon is not appl€cable to Tree Farm 5 because no
cul-de-sacs are proposed for Tree Farm 5,
F. Cul-de-sacs. Cul -desacs shall have alength of less than 600
feet, unless a longer length is approved by the appllicable fire
protection district, and more than 100 feet from the center of
the bulb to the intersection with the main road. The maximum
grade on the bu b shall, be four percent.
FINDINGS: No cul-de-sacs are proposed in Tree Farm 5, and therefore the Hearings Officer
finds this criterion is not applicable. As discussed above, I have found the cul-de-sacs proposed
for the eastern end of Ridgeline Court in Tree Farm 1 and the western end of Canopy Court in
Tree Farm 3 are justified by the topography and/or lack of through street connections in the
vicinity! However, because the proposed cul-de-sac at the end of Canopy Court is longer than
600 feet, I found in my Tree Farm 3 decision that the >>applicant will be required as a condition of
approval to obtain and submit to the planning Division mitten documentation from the fire
department that it has approved the length of Canopy Court;
Section 17.48.18
0, Private Roa
ds
The following minimum road standards shal
ap
ply for private roads:
A. The minimum paved roadway width shall be 20 feet in
planned unit developments and duster developments with
two -foot wide gravel shoulders,;
Minimum radius of cu
M
ax
ture, 50
mum grade, 12 percen
tp
eet„
23 The burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 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 Ron -1y Mortensen clarified the applicant is not seeking a variance and 1cos not
believe one is required'
Tree Farm;;%5, 247 -14 -000250 -CU 24--14000251-TP
Fade 83of91
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 states the private roads will
these standards, and the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required to constru
PUD's private roads in compliance with these standards as a condit
on of ap
At least one road name sign will be
intersection for each road;
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the ap
to comply with this criterion:
E. A method for contiin
County,
FINDINGS: The a
p
roads. The Hearin
execute a road', ma
plicant will be requ
uaag
roa
prove:
provided a
eet
the
each
red as condition of approval'
d ma
tenance acce
pt
ale to the
plicant proposes that The Tree Farm HOA will own and maintain all tree farm
gs Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to
intenance agreement with the county that is acceptable to the county.
F.
Private road systems shall include previsions for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. In cluster and planned developments
limited to ten dwelling units, the bicycle and pedestrian traffic
can be accommodatedwithin 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
allowed 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 Fara through a system of paved multi-
use paths running parallel to PUD roads, The segment of Tree Farm Drive in Tree Farm 3 would'
have a 26 -foot -ride paved surface to its intersection with Golden Cvlanfle Loop, and all other
public and private road segments 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 5 satisfies this criterion,
d. Section 17. 8.190, Drainage
A. Mnii
um Require
e
nts,
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
Council and all surface drainage water corning to
and/or passing through the development or roadway.
The system shall be designed for maximum' allowable'
development.
FINDING: The applicant proposes a surface water drainage plan for The Tree Fang that would
contain surface water on site through use of vegetated ales, roadside ditches, culverts, and
Tree F ' 5, 247.14 -000250 -CU, 247.1
4-0
00251 -TP
Pag
e84af91;
natural drainage ways. According to this plan, runoff would shed to vegetated svvaies 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 Turnalo 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 Tumalo 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
entry to The Tree Far€ i at Skylin€ers Road,
The Hearings Officer has found that prior to submitting for approval the final pat for any part of
The Tree Farm, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to subunit 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 determined to be necessary,
the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to show it on the final plat for Tree Farm
5 and to construct it. I find that with imposition of this condition of approval Tree Farm 5`> will
satisfy this criterion,.
Finally, the Hearings Officer finds the drainage plan for Tree Farm 5 need not be designed to
serve the site with "maximum allowable development' — i.e., urban -density development on the
UA .-10 zoned portion of the site —'inasmuch as the applicant intends that The Tree Farm never
will be annexed into the Bend UGB, and the applicant will be required as a condition of approval
to record deed restrictions permanently prohibiting development on The Tree Far e€ open space
tracts.
Noncurbed Sec
tions
1. Road culverts shall be concrete or meta
rriiMmum design life of 50 years
2e, AH cross culverts shall
le
rgera
wi
th a
be 18 inches in diameter or
Culverts shall be placed
shall provide positive drai
n natural d
nage.
ainage areas and
FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 states culverts used for The Tree
Farm will 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 Hearinn s Officer finds the applicant will be
required as a condition of approval to place ali'' culverts in natural drainage areas and provide
positive drainage,
Tree Farre 5, 247-14-0002
Drainage Swalese The Design Engineer is responsible is
design a drainage swale adequate to control a design storm
as defined in the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual created
by Central Oregon intergovernmental Council.
-CU, 247 -14 -000251 -TP`
Page 85 of 91
FINDINGS: The appllca
designed for a 50 -year st
this criterion;
nt's
burden of proof for Tree
event. Therefore, the
Farm 5 states the dralnag
earings Officer finds Tree
e swales will be
Farm 5 satisfies
Drainage Plans. A complete set of drainage plans Including
hydraulic and hydrologic calculations shall be incorporated
in ail road improvement plans.
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof for Tree Farm 5 includes a,narrative description of
its proposed drainage plan, and states complete modelling will 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 approve
to incorporate the drainage plan for Tree Farm 5 into the road improvement plan for Tree Farm
4, and to provide to the planning Division a copy of that plan before submitting the Tree Farm 5
fine plat for approval:
F. Drill Holes.
Dri
1 holes are prohibited
G. Injection wells (d
wa
Y.
rywel I
s) ars
proh
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's propose'
because no drill holes or injection wells are proposed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 satisfies,
conditions of approval' described above will satisfy, all, applicable criteria in Title 17.
bi
ted in the, public right-of-
omplies with these criteria
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
E.
Deschutes County Comprehensive plan,
with th
e
FINDINGS: Comprehensive plans' can be a potential source of approval standards for quasi-
judicial land use applications. The Flight Shop v. Deschutes County, Or LUBA (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 ‘Ivith other relevant plan
provisions pursuant to ordinances that require that the proposed land use be consistent with
applicable plan provisions. See, Bothrnan'v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006). Therefore,
the Hearings Officer finds that er the county's comprehensive plan, applies to Tree Farm
depends on whether their text and context Indicates they Include mandatory standards,
requirements, and/or considerations applicable to quasi-judicial development approvals,
The applicant and staff identified the following
p'
a
n provis
ons as a
1 Chapter 2 Resource Management Section
Goa
11, Ifalntal
n and en
hence a diversity
Policy'' 2.6.8, Balance protection c
private lands in the designated' V4#il
Id
Ii
fild
pplicable to Tree Farm 5.
lif
fe with wi
than In
dland U
and ha
Id
bite
land f
terface.
ts.
re miti
Tree Farm , 24714-00 25O -CU, 247-14-0OO25'l TP P
gation o'
ge 86 of 91''
FINDINGS: : The Hearings Officer finds this goal and policy are written in aspirational terms and
appear directed at the county rather than to applicants for land use approval, Therefore. l find
these provisions are not applicable to Tree Farm 5.
2. Cha
pter 3
Rural
Growth Manag
Goals and Policies
erne
r
t
Goal 1 Maintain the rural character and safety of housing ii
Deschutes County.
Policy 3.3.1. The mirrlmu parcel size
be 10 acres.
or new arra
n un ir corporated
residential parcels shail
FIND INGS: The Hearings Officer finds this policy is written'ln mandatory terns sug
applicable to Tree Farm 5. I have found Tree Farm 5 complies with the ten -acre mi
for lots or parcels in the RR -10 Zone, and therefore I find it also is
policy
gesting it is
nmum size
consistent with this plan'
Policy 3.3.4. Encourage new subdivisions to incor orate alternative
development patterns, such as cluster development, that mitigate
community and envirorrnental impacts.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer' finds
rather than at an applicant for a q
applicable to Tree Farm 5.
this policy is aspirationall and directed at the c
€nasi-judicl l and use application, and therefore i
For the fo€regoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds Tree Farm 5 is consistent with' a
county comprehensive plan goals and policies identified by planning staff.
V. DECISION:
p
a
nty',
not
plicabie
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby
DENIES the applicant's proposed conditional use, tentative plan, and site pian for a chaster
developrnentiPUD on the subject property, to be called Tree Farm 5.
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
RECOMMENDS such approval be SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL:
PRIO
R
This approval for Tree Farm 5 is based upon the applicant's submitted tentative plan.
site plan, burden of proof statements, and written and ora testimony. Any substantia
change to the approved plan will require new land use applications and approvals.
TO SUB
MITTI
G THE FINAL SUB
DIVISION PLAT FOR AP
PROVAL:
2. The applicant/owner shall' demonstrate to the Planning;,; 'Division
approval for The Tree Farm lot line adjustments have been met.
Tree Farm;. 5, 247-14-000250-CU,247-14-000251-TP
tha
t co€ndlt
Pad
n
of
e 87 of 91
The applican
Farm 5.
t/ow
er sh
all submit to the Pla
ning Division an u
pd
ed it
e repo
for Tree
The applicant/ wrier shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a copy
of nonrevocabie deed restrictions for the Tree, Farm 5 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 shallrecord these nonrevocable deed restrictions and shall provide
copies of the recorded deed restrictions to the Planning Division:
The applicantfowner shall record with the Desch
homeowner's association for Tree Farm 5,,
The applicant/hvvne
conditions and restri
utes
County Clerk the bylaws of the
r shall record with the Deschutes Cour
ctions for Tree Farm 5.
The applicant/hvrner s
Tree Farm 5.
hal
execu
to and record
a Donditi
ty Cie
rk the covena
f Approve
A
rets,
ent`
The applicant/owner shall execute and record with the Deschutes County Clerk a
development agreement for the private roads in Tree Farm 5 on a form approved by
Deschutes County Legal Counsel. The development agreement shall incorporate the
drainage plan for Tree Farm 5. 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 , 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
WMP for the Tree Farm 5 open space tract. The applicant/owner shall provide copies of
these recorded management agreements to the Planning Division
11. The applicant/owner shall obtain an approved septic site evaluation for each residentia
lot in Tree Farm 5.
12, The applicant/owner shall obtain from the Deschutes County Road De
access permit for the new road connection to Skyliners Road in Tree F
arm 1
pa en an
13, The applicant/ovrner,shall obtain from the Deschutes County Road Department a gate
permit for the gates on the new secondary emergency access road for The Tree Farm.
14 The applicantiowner shall submit to the Planning Division proof of City of Bend approve
to extend domestic water service, to Tree Farm 5. if City of Bend water is not available,
prior to final plat approval for any Tree Farm development the applicant shall submit to
the Planning Division proof that domestic water is available via the alternative means
identified by the applicant,
Tree Farm , 247.14-€100250-CUJ
247 -14 -000251 -TP
Pag
e
8of91
If the applicant/owner elects, or is, required to, provide water to The Tree Farm 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 source
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;
The applicant/owner shall provide to the Planning Division a statement from a registered'
professional engineer indicating whether a runoff storage basin is necessary.
The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division written verification from the
Bend Fire Department that all standards for subdivision roads, including the secondary
emergency access road, have been met.
18., The applicant/owner s
WIT
HO
Rt°3
N TH
E FI
hall pay all taxes for Tree Far
NAL SUBDIVISION 1 PLAT:
5 in accordance with ORS 92.0
9
5,
19. The applicant/owner shall prepare the final plat for Tree Farm 5 in accordance with, Title
17 of the Deschutes County Code, including all the necessary information required by
Section 17.24 060
20.
21
The applicant; owner shall show the following on the final plat for Tree Farm 5:
a. the exact lot size of each residential at, and of the open space tract which shall
be platted as a separate tract;
b.
the building envelope far each lot;
c. all easements of record and existing rights-of-way;
a statement of water righ
all utility easements;
all public access easements; and
is as req
uired by ORS 92.120;
if a runoff storage basin is necessary, the location of the storage basin.
The surveyor or registered>;professiona engineer submitting the final plat for Tree Farr i
5 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 road 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-way
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.
2 . The final plat for Tree Farm 5 shall be signed by all persons with an ownership interest in
the property, as well as the Deschutes County Assessor and Tax Collector,
Tree Farm>5, '24 .14 -000250 -CU
247 -14 -000251 -TP Page 89;,of 91
PRIOR TO OR W TH CO
NSTR
u
CTION:
23 The applicant/owner shall obtain from the Deschutes County Road Department approval,
of al construction plans for all required road improvements prior to commencement of
any construction.
24. Al', private road design
Table 'A' of the Desch
25.
Al
s shall
utes C
be in accordance with the standards in Chapter 17.48 and
ounty Code for rural local private roads.
private roads constructed in Tree Farm 5 shall include bicycle and
proposed on the tentative subdivision plan and
burden of proof,
pedestrian paths
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
surveyed and staked in accordance with DCC
2
8. The app
positive d
icant/owner
rainae.,
ha
II place al
29. If a runoff storage basin Is d
construct such a basin at the lo
determined to be appropriate by
ete
30. The applicant/own
er s
ha
iiia
ata
n
road improvements in Tree Farre 5 are
culverts
1' 7.48.200
na
ra
drainage are
and
provid
e
ined to be necessary, the applicant /owner shall
point in Tree Farm 1, or in such other location as
a registered professional engineer,
a
31. The applica€nt/ova{ner shall install
each road.
II utilities u
nd
erg
nd
at least one road name sign at each intersection for
32. If the applicant/owner provides domestic water sere€ce to Tree Farm 5 through extension
of and connection to the City of Bend water system, the applicant/owner shall construct
a required water lines to the city's standards and specifications therefor.
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.
34. The applicant/owner shall construct all''' rec
rninirnum tread width and a six foot minimum clea
minimum overhead clearance of seven feet,
reationlmountalin bike rails with a two -foot
FOLLOWI
N
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL;
ring
width centered over the trail, and a
35. The applicant/ow€nee shall begin construction of Tree Farms 1, 2 and within six months
of the date this decision becomes final, or such longer period of time as the Plannin
Director may allow.
Tree Farrn 5, 247-14- 02 0 -CU, 247-14-000251-]-P
Page 90of91
AT ALL TI
MES:
The applicant/owner shall satisfy all reguireents of the Bend Fire Depa
protection within Tree Farm .
for fire
3 The applicant/owner shall limit uses permitted in the Tree Farm, 5 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 5 covenants, conditions and restrictions,
The applicant/owner shall install any fencing in Tree Farm 5 in accordance with the, `A
Zone standards therefor.
The applicant/owner shall assure the building height and setback standards in the UAR-
10, RR -1>0 and A-10 Zones are met for dwellings in Tree Farm
40. The applicant/owner shall assn re that address numbers are provid
Tree Farm 5 as required by the Oregon Fire Code.
DURATION OF APPROVAL:
41,
d for each dwelling in
The applicant/owner r 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.
42. The applicant/owner shall complete all conditions of approval and apply for final plat
approval from the Planning Division for Tree Farms 4 a within four (4) years of the
date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension in accordance with the
provisions of Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code,
Doted this lath d
ay of Ma
Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer
TIS
UN
IS DECISION BECO
I4
h, 2
015
M
ailed
his lath day of March, 2
ES FINAL TWELVE (12) DAYS
LESS APPEALED BY A PARTY 0
F INTE
EST.
Tree Farm 5 , 247-14-0 250-CUJ, 247-14- 25 TP
015
AFTER THE DATE 0
F'
AI
N
GF
Daae Q1 of 91
Co It
its
1
op
era Dep
Newt ir xg Division Lis.+'tidi sg Safety Division Ery
441 44441114\4 \\ 'v
P 0 Box 6005 117 € dW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97700„6005
(541)388.5575 FAX (541)385-1764
http /f www.co.deschutec>,s3e,u ; <,d;1
F
CE TI
MATE 0
E NUMBERS. 247-
DOCUMENTS
47-
DOCUM NTS MAI
247-1
247-1
247-1
247-1
LED: H
iAP/TAX LOT
NU
M
B
ERS:
certify that on the '18th day of
March 18, 2015, was/were mailed by fi
address(es) set forth on the attached list,
CO
Rory Mortensen
The Tree Farm, LLC
409 NW Franklin Avenue
B
end, OR
97701
Ken Ririe
Walker Macy
1 1 SW Oak St #200
Portland OR 97204
Jeffrey 'Condit
Miller Nash LLP
3400 US Bancorp Tower;,
111 SW Fifth Avenue,
Portland,, OR 97204-3699
F
MALIN
0
4 -000242 -CU, 243 -TP
4 -000244 -CU, 245 -TP
4 -000246 -CU, 247 -TP
4 -000248 -CU, 249 -TP
4 -000250 -CU, 251 -TP
grins Officer Decisions Tree Fares 1 thru
17-11-35D00-0400; 1
7-1
6208, 6209, 6210, 6211
1-6002, 6205, 6207,
6212 and 6213
arch, 2€ 15, the attached recti
Mass mail, postage prepaid,,,
Dated this 18th day of
t
N
!TY D
EVELOP
E
arch. 20
NT
DE
By: Moonlight BPO
ea tty Services Pe
PART
F
NT
ce(s)/repart(s), dated
to the person(s) and
Charley Miller
Biller Tree Farm
110 NE Greenwood Avenue,
Bend, OR 977€ 1
--------- ------------------
Ron Hand
WHP citic
123 SW Columbia > Street
----- ----------
Bend` OB. 9'7702
Dale Van Valken ur€g
Brooks Resources Corporation
409 NW Franklin Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
"il k€ P ide
Connie Peterson
2203 N Clearwater Drive
Bend. OR 97701-2203
Doug Wickham
61971 Kildonan Court
Bend, OR 97702
Corey Heath & Nancy Bruener
Oregon Department of Fish `'& Wildlife
61374 P rrell Road
Bend, OR 97702
Michelle Healy"& Steve Jorgensen
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
799 SW Columbia Street
Bend, OR 97702
Myles Conway
Marten Law
404 SW Columbia Street, Suite 212
Bend, OR 977€02
Ai Johnson
2522 NW Crossing Drive
Bend, OR 97701
Paul Dewey
539 NW Vicksburg Avenue
Bend, OR 9770
Kelly Esterbrook
16322 B y11ners Road
Bend, OR 97701
Christine Herric '»
2281 NW High Lekes Loop
Bend. OR 97701
arry Medina,
Bend Fire Department
1212 SW Simpson, Suite B
Bend. OR 97702
Jennifer Taylor & Christine Pollard
19001 Sq irr&tail Loop
Bend .> OR 97701
George Weurthner'
P.O. Box 8359
Bend, OR 97708
Edward & Lynn Funk
2138 Toussaint Drive
Bend, OR 97701
Deschutes County,
Ed Keith, Forester
George Kolb, Road Department
Peter Russell, CDD