33-669-Order Recorded 12/7/1979VOL 33 FACE 669
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COP2MISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
1
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY
2
In the Matter of
3 Preliminary Plat #538
Mountain High. Order
4 - - _ - - _ -
5 This matter came on for hearing before the regular term of the Board of
6 County Commissioners on December 18, 1979. Robert Lovlien Esq. represented
7 the applicant, J.L. Ward Construction Co. Louis Dvorak, Count•v Counsel
8 and Lynn .McKibben, County Engineer made statements about the record on
9 the Appeal. This application was approved by -the Hearings Officer on
10 March 20, 1979, subject to the conditions, among others, which were contained
11 in the Road Department Memorandum dated February 20, 1979. One of the
12 conditions in that memorandum is as follows:
13
"9. A partition of Tax Lot 600 (15--12-21) will. be shown
or Sunnyside Blvd. will be completed through this Tax
14
Lot, if Sunnyside Blvd. is to be built to current arterial
standards
15
On July 11, 1979, on appeal by the applicant, the Planning Commission
16
affirmed the decision of the hearings officer and modified the condition.
17
X
to read as follows:
W
18
a
Sunnyside Blvd. as shown on the Deschutes County Roadway
19
Network Plan of 1978 and the Bend Area General Flan map
0
°°g
of 1979, will be constructed to current arterial standards
a~
¢z~°N
z-
20
prior to final plat approval. Tax Lot 600, assessor's
O,ZO
o
ow
oOo
map number 1.R-12-21 as it appeared May 16, 1978; will
o
m>->-Qo
21
be made a part of the preliminary plat. if the applicant
>>°a
d
completes Sunnyside Blvd. through said Lot, Plat #539
ui
ooo
JoOWW
22
may show one access to said boulevard within said Tax
UJ
Lot, the precise location of which is subject to Road
x
23
Department approval."
U
V
0
24
The notice of appeal is exclusively concerned with the legal right of the County
25
to deny preliminary plat approval unless Sunnyside Boulevard is :wilt to current
26
arterial standards. :1 review of the record shows that in concentrating on this
Page
1 of 3
VOL 33 pacL 670
1 legal issue, the record is deficient in evidence concerning the effect
2 on Murphy Road and connecting roads if the proposed subdivision is built out.
3 The legal issue of the powers of the County to deny the final plat approval
4 until such time as Sunnyside Boulevard's missing lint; is completed, must
5 be based on findings as to whether the proposed subdivision will be adequately
6 served by the existing Murphy Road, or whether the alternative access of
7 a connecting link to a completed •Sunnyside Boulevard is needed for public safety..:
8 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal of the decision of
9 the Planning Commission approving Preliminary Plat #539, Mountain High, made
10 July 10, 1979, is remanded to the Hearings Officer pursuant to Section 14.020
11 5, of County Procedural Ordinance PL-9 to take testimony and make detailed
12 findings of fact on the following questions:
13 1. Is Murphy Road, the proposed access to Mountain High subdivision,
14 adequate at present to handle the existing traffic load?
15 2. If so, how much additional traffic would be anticipated from the
16 proposed ;Mountain High subdivision if it were developed in 1930, 1981,
17 or 1982.
W 18 3. What are the plans of the County to improve Murphy Road during
z
a
(0 this period?
Joo0 19
acn~.v 4. What contingencies stand in the way of realizing such plans?
°joo ° 20
m).ywz 5. Would the anticipated increase in traffic caused by the development
wZZ0o
c 21
oooZW a
of mountain High require improvements to Murphy Road in order to maintain the
JC WW 22
U)m, current level of safety to the travelling public?
23
W 6. If so, does the County plan to make these improvements? When?
24
7. Would the completion of Sunnyside Boulevard as an arterial relieve
25
the traffic burden on Murphy Road? If Sunnyside Blvd. were completed prior
26
Page 2 of 3
r
va 33 FAu671
1 to the development of Mountain High subdivision, would there be a need for
2 improvements to Murphy Road to maintain the existing level of safety t}iereon
3 if the ,proposed Mountain high subdivision were developed?
4 8. If so, what improvements would be needed to maintain the existing level.
5 of safety?
6
9.
By what date is the
County planning to make these improvements?
7
10.
What contingencies
stand in the way of their completion?
8
11.
What difference is
them between the improvements that would be
9
required
to Murphy Road and
the connecting roads if the proposed Mountain High
10
subdivis
ion were developed
with, and without the completion of Sunnyside Blvd?
11
12.
What is the projected date of completion of the improvements in both
12 cases?
13 BATED: December 18, 1979
14
15
16
17
X
Z 18
a
w
000 19 DISTRIBUTION:
YW=ro
~Cn~-C,< County Counsel
9S.2 20
> ooco Planning Director
°
C6 °0rwz Applicant
5z zoa 21 Robt. S. Lovlien, Esq.
oUoUzW 22
w
Cn m-
w
F-
23
m
w
° 24
BOARD OF COL' 4M. ' OTIMISSIOrdERS
Chairman
Commissioner
_ no
Commissioner
25
26
Page 3 of 3