2005-1127-Minutes for Meeting April 13,2005 Recorded 10/10/20051UTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS
BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
SSIONERS' JOURNAL
1,,,,1„1.1,,.,,, �, 111 10/10/2005 10:28:00 AM
1327
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF DEPARTMENT UPDATE — ROAD DEPARTMENT
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf and Dennis R. Luke; Commissioner
Michael M. Daly was out of the office. Also present were Mike Maier, County
Administrator; and Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department. No
representatives of the media or other citizens were present.
The meeting began at 2: 30 p. m.
A general discussion took place regarding agenda items submitted by Mr. Blust,
including an overview of the South Century Drive/Sunriver Development and local
improvement district long-term maintenance cots. (See the attached copy of the
agenda)
Other items discussed were current County road projects and proposed road
establishments.
The Board was given an overview of an offer from HOF Oregon Corporation
regarding exchanging a truck for services.
LUKE: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Department Update — Road Department Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
DATED this 13th Day of April 2005 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
&V4��64tA---
Recording Secretary
Tom DeWolf, diair
ennis R. Luke, Commissioner
Attachment
Exhibit A: Agenda and backup information (8 pages)
Minutes of Department Update — Road Department Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Page 2 of 2 Pages
%i
�} ES
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 13, 2005
TO: Tom DeWolf, Chair
Michael M. Daly, Commissioner
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
FROM: Tom Blust, Road Department Director
RE: Monthly Meeting with Road Department
CC: Mike Maier, County Administrator
Bonnie Baker, Executive Secretary
1)
2)
3)
a]
5)
6)
'bi
61150 S.E. 27th St- Bend, QFC 97702
(541 ) 338-E58 1 • FAX (541) 388-2_'719
AGENDA
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
2:30 p.m. at Deschutes County Admin. Building
South Century Drive / Sunriver (Harper) Development
Discussion regarding LID long-term maintenance costs
Discussion regarding proposed Road Establishments
Discussion regarding Holiday Drive / neighbor dispute
Discussion regarding improvements within public road right of way (Mcardle Road).
Update on county road projects
7) Additions to Agenda:
"Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. "
L4
2005 Road Establishments
Road Number
Road Name
Subdivision
Miles
Wheeler Road
Wheeler Ranch Phases 1 & 2
0.2
4537
Lasso Lane
Wheeler Ranch Phases 1 & 2
0.1
4536
Wyatt Drive
Wheeler Ranch Phases 1 & 2
0.12
4533
Mac Court
Wheeler Ranch Phases 1 & 2
0.09
4534
McClintock Place
R & W Estates
0.04
4535
Oakridge Place
R & W Estates
0.04
Shaw Pine Court
Jack Pine Meadows
0.05
4539
Findley Drive
Crescent Creek
0.16
4540
Crescent Creek Dr.
Crescent Creek
0.14
4541
Beesley Place
Crescent Creek
0.13
4542
Fordham Dr.
Crescent Creek
0.14
7889
Wendy Road
Wickiup Commercial Complex
0.09
7890
Whitney Road
Wickiup Commercial Complex
0.11
Rosland Road
Wickiup Commercial Complex
0.17
4191
Preble Way
Huntin ton Meadows
0.1
Heath Drive
Huntington Meadows
0.24
Cassidy Court
Huntington Meadows
0.12
Cassidy Way
Huntington Meadows
0.07
3604
Baker Court
MP -03-31
0.05
Overtree Road
MP -02-20
0.14
View Lane
MP -01-9
0.15
Hutchinson Way
Ranchette View Estates
0.18
Central Avenue
Hillman (Terrebonne)
0.05
19th Street
Hillman (Terrebonne)
0.05
1238
Doggie Drive
Squaw Creek Canyon
Recreational Estates
0.08
Total miles established this
order
2.81
MAR -31-2005 THU 10:43 AM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO, 541 617 4748 P. 02
03/31/2005 09:36 FAX 503 285 1058 BALL JANIK 19002/006
BAIL JANIK LLP
A T T 0 R K R Y s
lot satr>iNIM Mai STAMr, SME 1100
PORTLWD, OPBON 97704.3718
wwW,boankcom
7U"M M 30342S-1329
KLnSTINUDYALu Fep>m" 503.2,95.1058 L•udvari@bj11p,aom
ALSO AOMMMO fw WAsWNGWN
Mamh 31, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAXI.
Laurie craghead
Assistant Legal Counsel
Office of Deschutes County Counsel
1300 NW Wall St., Ste, 200
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Sunriver/Harper Destination Resort Project
Dear Laurie:
This eoresponda m serves to follow up on our recent conversation regarding the
Sunrivcr/Harper Destination Report project ("Project'). You inquired about the future vacation
of the road tights -of -way within the Townsite of Harper, an old subdivision plat located within
the northern nnMnn nfthr. Amor#. Rnenifieally_ vAii nalrari witatha,r tha Qrninv RivOr Rnaci rieht-
ofway should be retained and used to create a new intersection with South century Drive. This
road cxttnsion option, referenced as the "dog -leg" or "Spring River Road extension" option, was
originally investigated by the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT'), and
subsequently reviewed by the County Traffic Engineer and Kittclson & Associates. The County
Engineer and Kittelson concluded that the dog -leg is not necessary to moot future capacity needs
of the area. Therefore, the old toad rights-of-way within the Townsite of Harper should be
vacated, consistent with the condition of approval proposed by Planning StW
In addition, you inquired about the applicability of ORS 92.180 through 92.190 to
the vacation of the Townsite and the associated public roads. As explained below, ORS 92.180
through 92.190 govern replats. SRLP does not propose to replat the Townsits of Harper. Rather,
SRLP proposes to vao#c it in its entirety, including the public roads doEcated on the plat. Thus,
the replat provisions of OAS 92.180 through 92,190 will not be applicable to this situation. We
expect the vacation will be processed under ORS 92.234 and/or 368, both of which allow the
roads to be vacated concurrently with the subdivision lots,
1. Evidentlary Support far 'Vacation of Spring River Road
As you correctly noted, one of file public rights-of-way within the TownAte of
Harper, Spring River Road, had been coxwidered for a future traffic improvement. Specifically,
••nnMA�PCL)oCS�PORTLANCM78S6d�1
eamuft. L1pfr.OM W.,A..WMIN, D.C. 33IP0, om=wq
MAR -31-2005 THU 10:43 AM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO, 541 617 4748 P. 03
03/31/2003 09:36 FAX 503 235 1058 BALL JANIK toVVdJ0ue
BALL JANIK LLP
Laurie Craghcad
March 31, 2005
Page 2
the "dog -leg!' improvement option would involve the extension of a new roadway from Spring
River Road at its intersection with South rAntury Drive, through the Townsite of Harper, across
rural and Forest Service lands and over railroad tracks to create a new intersection with South
Century Drive to the west of the US 97 interchange.
Tho "dog -leg" was originally examined in the US 97/South Century Drive
Environmental Assessment CTA!), but since has been dropped from consideration within the
EA. (Kittelsou & Associates, Inc., Traffic Impact Analysis (TW), December 2004, at 21.)
The decision to drop the alternative from the EA was based on input received between May 2002
and January 2003 from FHWA, the project Staring Committee, ODOT Project Teaun,
Stakeholders Conunittee, and the general pubk Generally, the alternative was dropped become
it would have requited the conversion of more forest resource land than the proposed Build
Alternative and did not offer substantially higher benefits than the proposed Build Alternative.
Section 3.4.2 of the EA lists the following additional reasons for exclusion of the "dog-leje'
option.,
It would not resolve the safety problem at South Century Drive
and U.S. 97 intersection.
• It involves a new interchanac on U,9, 97 in an area not
topographically suitable for it.
- It does not make efficient use of existing in&astructme.
Not only was the "dogleg" road rejected in the EA, it is also not included in the
County's Transportation System Plan. In fact, constructing the road would require an exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 4 because the route would traverse n al forest lands. To justify the
goal exception, the County would need to demonstrate that no feasible alternatives exist to
constructing a new roadway on rural lands. As discussed below, the County would not be able to
meet this burden because alternative transportation improvements are available to maintain the
functionality of the roads and intersections in the arca.
The TIA for the Project analyzed and idoutiftod spcific roadway improvements
designed to meet future traffic needs of the Sunriver area without adding the "dog -leg." These
improvements include a single lane roundabout constructed at Abbot Drive and South Century
Drive intersection; a turn lane for northbound traffic constructed at the Spring River Road and
South Century Drive intersection; and a southbound turn lane constructed on South Century
Drive at the proposed entrance to the Project, In addition to the December, 2004 TLA, Kittetson
also submitted a February 7, 2005 supplemental memorandum which extended the analysis of
the "dogleg" option beyond the study period required for the land use approval, Specifically,
the supplcrmcntal report noted,
::0DMA%PCD0C5kF0K7TANM4181dV4
MAR -31-2005 THU 10:43 AM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO. 541 617 4748
03/31/2005 08;38 FAX 503 265 1058 BALL JAHIK
BALL JANIK LLP
Laurie Craghead
March 31, 2005
Page 3
"Sumiver Resort LP recognizes that it is in their best interest to
understand how the transportatiou system will fimction beyond the
buildout year of the resort. For this reason, our report analyzes year
2027 conditions wider the two scenarios outlined above, Swwiver
also felt that it was appropriate to evaluate longer -tam system
operations to understand whether the "dog leg" option will be
needed over time. As documented in our report, in year 2027, the
land swap will not change the needs at any of the intersections
except at Spring River. At the Spring River/S Century Drive
intersection, the land swap, combined with regional growth, may
create the need to construct a double lane roundabout at Spring
River Roel, rather than a single lane." (February 7, 2005 Kittelson
Memo, p. 4).
P. 04
VJVV4JVVe
As explained in the above, even in 2027 the "dog -leg" will not be necessary to
accommodate the reswrt and other potential development. Rather, the additional growth can be
accommodated by the improvements proposed in the TLA, plus a larger roundabout. County
Traffic Engineer, Gary Judd, carefully reviewed the Kittelson memoranda and ODOT's traffic
study and concluded that the improvements proposed in the TLA, without the 11dog4eg"
extension, will meet the County's minimal operational traffic standards through at least the year
2020. The record contains a February 14, 2005 memorandum from Mr. Judd on this issue.
Consistent with the expert testimony in the record from Kittelson and W. Judd,
County $tifproposed that the improvements recommended in the T1A be incorporated into the
Project as conditions of approval. - Accordingly, Staff also recommended a condition requiring
vacation of the Townsite plat in its entirety.
2. Vacation statutes
In addition to inquiring about the technical support for vacation of Spring River
Road, you also asked us to explain how the provisions of ORS 92.185(5) and 92.190(2) would
affect our plans to vacate the public road risho-of-way within the Tow cite. As detailed below,
those provisions will not apply because wo do not propose to rrplat the old subdivision.
ORS 92.180 through 92.190 gaovem replats of subdivisions.' As you noted, ORS
92.185(S) specifies that "[a] replat shall not serve to vacate any public street or road," and QRS
92.190(2) states. "Nothing in ORS 92.180 to 92.190 is intended to prevent the operation of
vacation actions by statutes in ORS chapter 271 or 368." These provisions seem to suggest that,
ORS 92.010(12) demos as "the Act of platting the lots, parcels and pmt$ in a
recorded subdivision or partition plat to achieve a reconfiguration of the existing subdivision or
partition plat or to increase or decrease the number of lots in the subdivision."
.,0VKANPCD0CMP0KTLANW74561�4
MAR -31-2005 THU 10:43 AM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO. 541 617 4748 P. 05
03/31/2005 09:37 FAX 503 296 1058 BALL JANIK 4M 005/006
BALL JANYK r.LP
Laurie Cragbead
March 31, 2005
Page 4
in the context of a replat, the applicant must also file a separate application if the applicant
wishes to vacate any streets within the reconfigured subdivision. Regardless, it is not necessary
to determine the meaning of these two statutory provisions because they do not apply to the
current situ6on.
To develop the proposed destination resort, SRLP proposes to vacate the
Townsite plat in its entirety (i.e. all lots and roads will be vacated), SRLP does not propose to
merely reconfigure or increase or decresse the number of lots. Thus, the proposal is a pure
vacation, which will be processed pursuant to ORS 92.234 and/or 368.320 Both vacation
statutes permit the vacation of any public roads within a subdivision concurrently with the
vacation of the subdivision lots, For example, ORS 92.234(3), which governs the vacation of
undeveloped subdivisions states: "I£ the agency or body detecminee that it is necessary to vacate
a subdivision, the agency or body shall adopt an ordinance vacating the subdivision and
providing for the vacation of lands within file subdivision that have been dedicated for public
use." (Emphasis added).
Thus, we do not expect to apply ORS 92.180 through 92.190 to the future
vacation of the Townsite of Harper, Rather, we expect to work with the County to vacate the
subdivision and associated public roads concurrently under ORS 92.234 and/or 368.326,
Pursuant to ORS 368.346(2), the only subjective approval criterion applicable to the vacation
application will be a general `public interest" standard. Section 1 of this meaclorsndum details
why the proposed vacation is in the public interest. As described above, the road is part of an
old, undevelop_ ed subdivision that is being vacated to make way for a master -planned resort
development. nc old road was not designed to servo the new resort development, and the road
is not needed to address the transportation needs of the Sunrivcr Area. To the contrary, as
confirmed by the EA., retention of the right-of-way and use of the mad for the Spring River Road
tatension project would result in the eonvorsion of forest laud fur a transportation facility that
would not improve mobility or resolve the safety problem at South Century Drive and U.S. 97
intersection.
s ORS 368.326 explains that ORS 368.326 to 368.366 establish vacation procedures by which a
county governing body may vacate subdivisions and public toads, and ORS 368.326(7_) states:
"The vacation procedures under QRS 368.326 to 368.366...[a]re an alternative method to the
tuethod established under ORS chapter 92 for the vacation of a subdivision."
::O0MANCD=T0RTLANIM7856M
MAR -31-2005 THU 10:44 AM COUNTY COUNSEL
03/31/2003 03:37 FAX 503 295 1059 BALL JANIK
BALD. JANIK LLP
Laurie Graghead
March 31, 2oo5
Page 5
3. Conclusion
FAX NO, 541 617 4748 P, 06
W gUU1UQe
I hope this summary addresses your questions regarding vacation of the Townsite
of Harper, As explained above, the technical data in the record supports the vacation of the
Townsite plat, including Spring River Road, and it is possible to vacate the subdivision and its
public roadways concurrently per state statute, If you have further questions regarding these
i ssuee, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kristin Vdvari
KU:cans
cc: Tom Luersen
Julia Kuhn
Nancy Craven
:.-0DMA\FCD0CM1MAWV41H61M
1995-2004
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
NAME
LENGTH
STATUS
COST
# OF LOTS
$ / LOT
YEAR
92nd St.
failed
$262,594
45
$5,835
2002
97th St.
failed
$450,000
62
$7,300
2000
Agate LID
14,700
built
$620,438
195
$3,182
1997
Apache
3,900
built
$220,900
51
$4,300
1995
Apache II
pending
$684,000
152
$4,500
2005
Arapho LID
failed
$900,000
216
$4,170
1999
Arid Ave
failed
$400,000
21
$10,670
2004
Bandley Rd
1,275
built
$69,835
7
$9,976
2003
Bull Bat Ln
522
built
$32,000
10
$3,200
2003
Choctaw LID
failed
$222,750
48
$4,640
1996
Collar Dr
3,100
built
$148,753
15
$10,702
2002
Covina Rd
2,100
built
$32,000
18
$833
2003
Donner PI
pending
$30,000
5
$6,000
2004
Edgington Rd
failed
$660,000
48
$14,000
2003
Emerald Valley
pending
$300,000
9
$33,300
2004
Gift Rd
15,029
built
$707,066
119
$7,206
2002
Harper Rd
pending
$265,000
9
$29,400
2005
Hereford LID
9,600
built
$487,784
68
$7,173
1998
Holiday LID
failed
$1,644,000
258
$6,372
1999
Hopi LID
failed
$261,000
46
$5,700
1999
Hurtly Ranch Rd
5,280
built
$247,034
13
$20,590
2003
Journey Ave
failed
$310,000
49
$6,300
1997
Kiowa Dr
2,550
built
$148,000
21
$7,050
2003
Lazy River Dr LID
10,020
built
$445,140
200
$2,226
2002
Limestone LID
13,728
built
$984,161
156
$6,309
1997
McCaw Rd
failed
$74,000
6
$12,300
1997
McSwain Dr
failed
$74,000
6
$12,300
2003
Mohawk Rd
3,200
built
$137,515
35
$3,929
2000
Mountain View Rd
7,500
built
$278,252
59
$4,716
2001
Newberry Estates
failed
$2,275,000
262
$8,700
2004
Newell
pending
$265,000
31
$8,550
2005
Oasis Dr
8,500
built
$440,000
45
$9,800
2003
Panoramic
pending
$2,043,000
147
$14,000
2005
Pawnee
failed
$900,000
216
$4,200
1997
Pinewood
failed
$1,045,000
39
$26,790
2004
Pioneer Lp
pending
$650,000
46
$14,000
2005
Piute LID
1,200
built
$83,490
19
$4,394
1998
Pocahontas LID
failed
$300,000
53
$5,700
1996
Quail Ln
failed
$669,000
95
$7,050
1996
Rancho EI Sereno
failed
$400,000
37
$10,700
2004
River Woods
failed
$191,360
45
$4,252
1995
River Woods Cr
failed
$28,000
- 7
$4,000
1997
Tallwood Ln
failed
$47,230
10
$4,723
2000
Tetherow Xing
failed
$3,000,000
375
$11,000
2003
Woodchip Rd
failed
$231,000
42
$5,500
2002
Zuni LID
failed
$185,000
53
$3,500
1998
102204
$23,849,302
3469
(19.4 mi)